Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 Feb 1952

Vol. 129 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Unemployment Situation—Motion.

Mr. Norton

I move:—

That in view of the marked increase in unemployment, particularly among insured workers, the Dáil calls upon the Government to take immediate steps to deal with this serious situation by measures calculated to increase the overall volume of industrial and commercial employment and by the expansion of the public works programme and, further, that as the present rates of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance benefit are totally inadequate to provide even minimum support for unemployed workers and their families in view of the present high prices, the Dáil is of the opinion that the Government should increase the existing rates of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance benefit pending the passing of legislation to provide for improved social security.

I do not want to deal with this motion in any partisan political way nor do I desire to see the cut and thrust of Party politics displayed on this motion. I think the issues involved are far too serious, and that the rise in unemployment conjures up an economic picture which has serious portents for the future. For these reasons I should like to see this motion discussed in a calm manner, each Deputy having a sober realisation of the seriousness of the issues involved, and I hope that all Parties in the House will endeavour to make a contribution to the debate in an effort to ease the lot of the unfortunate men and women and their helpless children, who are the victims of the situation which now confronts us. It is to this House, and to this House only, that these unfortunate families who have been afflicted with the social curse of unemployment must look for succour from their daily privations, and this House would be unworthy to be a Parliament of the people if it did not candidly recognise that it has social obligations to these people of which it cannot divest itself—social obligations which it must bear no matter what the difficulties may be, and social obligations which must be discharged in the circumstances that confront us to-day.

I have the unemployment figures which are available—I quote official figures here—and they are such as to shake anybody who may feel complacent about the position out of any mood of complacency in which he may desire to take shelter. Official figures show that on the first Saturday in February, 1950, there were 22,000 persons claiming unemployment insurance benefit. On the first Saturday in February, 1951, which is the nearest comparable date, there were 22,000 people claiming unemployment insurance benefit. But, on the first Saturday of February, 1952, the figure had jumped to 31,000 which clearly demonstrates that as compared with February of last year and February of the previous year the number of persons drawing unemployment insurance benefit alone had jumped by no less than 9,000. When you search to see if you can find any evidence as to when our own employment insurance recipients reached the figure of 31,000 you have to go back to the chaotic, disorganised days of 1923. Therefore, we are now presented with a situation in which we have more people claiming unemployment insurance benefit than at any time since 1923, and one can understand the economic situation in the country during that year.

Not only are the figures of to-day serious but their tendency is still more serious. If you look at the figures for 1950 and 1951 you will find that after Christmas in each year there was a tendency for these figures to fall; that is, the unemployment insurance figures of applicants seeking benefit tended to fall. Now we have an entirely different situation. Instead of the figures tending to fall they tend to rise. For example, in the three weeks prior to the first week in February, 1951, the figures fell by 1,600, but the figures this year in the same three weeks show an increase of 1,000, again indicating that, bad as the situation is to-day, and high as the number receiving unemployment benefit is to-day, the tendency is not towards a rectification of the position but towards a further deterioration in the whole employment position.

If you stand back from the situation revealed by those who are receiving unemployment insurance benefit and look at the over-all picture of unemployment, the position is equally bleak and equally disconcerting. Again, I am quoting from an official document issued by the Central Statistics Office when I say that in February, 1950, the over-all number of persons registered as unemployed, that is, drawing unemployment insurance benefit, unemployment assistance benefit, and with special Army claims then current, was 71,000. In February, 1951, the figure had fallen to 64,000. But, in February, 1952, the figure had risen by 10,000 to 74,000, a figure which had not been reached in 1950 or 1951. Here again an examination of the official figures shows that the tendency is for the number to rise, which is against the normal tendency revealed in the previous years.

While these figures disclose a serious situation, the real inner facts which are not disclosed by the figures make manifest a still more disconcerting situation because, as those of us who have been dealing with this problem in public life know, a considerable number of persons who are unemployed, who have no stamps to their credit, or no qualification certificates immediately available, or who are only entitled to a low rate of unemployment assistance, do not go to the trouble of signing at the employment exchanges. Firstly, they take the view that, with other people unemployed and in receipt of benefit, those who have no benefits to get are not likely to get employment before those who have benefits to get, because governmental practice has been to give preference of employment to those drawing the highest rate of unemployment assistance benefit, with the result that those who have no stamps to their credit or who are only entitled to a small amount of unemployment assistance do not trouble to go the distance to the employment exchanges to register because they do not feel that there is any corresponding benefit by doing so. Therefore, if these were included in the number of persons who can be reckoned as unemployed, the figure would be much higher than the 74,000 I have quoted as the current unemployment figure for the first Saturday in February.

When we take stock of this unemployment situation as revealed by these figures, let us bear in mind as well that we have reached this high peak notwithstanding the fact that emigration in the last four months of 1951 and the first month of 1952 showed an increase of 65 per cent. over the figures for the same months of the previous year. Again, these are official statistics supplied by the Taoiseach in answer to a parliamentary question yesterday. We have, therefore, this serious situation. We have a jump of 10,000 in the number of persons registered as unemployed compared with the same period last year and this notwithstanding the fact that there is a considerable number of people who do not register because it is not worth their while to do so. We have this huge total of unemployed notwithstanding the fact that our emigration figures show that 65 per cent. more people sought permits to go abroad to work in the five months from September, 1951, to the end of January, 1952.

I suggest to the House that, no matter what political Party we may be associated with, that is a serious situation. It is not one from which we can escape simply by ignoring it. It is not one which can be ignored, because underlying that substantial increase in unemployment is a mass of human suffering, a mass of unemployed men and women with family responsibilities trying to pay rent, trying to feed themselves, trying to clothe themselves, trying to buy all the other necessaries of life in a civilised community. Therefore, it must be the task of this Parliament to devise ways and means to try to put these people into employment, which is the preferable course, or, if we fail to do that, at least to mitigate the severest privations which unemployment necessarily inflicts on the ordinary working-class family.

I do not think anybody would attempt to deny that our emigration position is serious and is tending to become still more serious. Newspapers which have no political axe to grind and clergymen have given utterance during the past months, and previously, let me say, to the fact that they are startled with the way in which the country is being stripped of its manhood and womanhood. Again, no matter what our political associations may be, that is a situation which is a challenge to our capacity to legislate intelligently for our people. I think, however, that, bad as the present situation is, what appears to lie ahead will be even worse. Deputy Davin said at Question Time to-day, and the newspapers have carried a similar report, that, in a week's time, approximately 300 county council workers in Laois will be paid off. They may have to go to seek employment elsewhere. It is not available to them locally. The choice for them is to go to the employment exchange, if they have stamps to their credit to entitle them to benefit there, or, alternatively, to go to the emigrant ship, which apparently offers the only hope of their getting regular employment.

In Meath, Deputy Dunne recently took a deputation to the Meath County Council on behalf of road workers employed in the county where the same story was told: a couple of hundred men out of employment clamouring at the offices of the county council for opportunities to work and petitioning the county council to approach the Minister for Local Government with a view to securing grants to enable these people to continue in employment until the new rate made the prospect of a longer period of employment possible for them. Recently, we read in the newspapers of similar demonstrations by unemployed persons in County Tipperary where large numbers were standing off. The fear of another payoff was so imminent that they felt it necessary to go to the county council and ask it to take steps not only to find employment for those paid off, but to try and avert the still greater pool of unemployment which was likely to arise once the existing grants had run out.

If one looks at the traders, as distinct from those employed in the public service, the position revealed is a very serious one. In the textile trade, the great majority of textile workers are not doing a full week's work. A very large number of textile workers are whole-time unemployed, while the great majority of the remainder are not employed for a full week. If one looks at the import figures one can find no real explanation of that because the import figures do not show that there have been any imports on a scale to justify the unemployment position which now exists in the textile and clothing trades. If you look at the boot and shoe industry a very, very large number of workers in it are paid off and practically the entire trade is on part-time employment. This may, of course, be due to the fact, and I think is due to the fact, that there is a buyers' resistance in these two fields of productivity, a buyers' resistance probably due to the fact that there is not money available to replenish textiles and garments and to replenish boots and shoes. The consequent result is that unemployment is caused in both these industries by reason of what appears to be a fact, a buyers' resistance. If you have a buyers' resistance in these two industries there is probably nothing you can do about it, but it seems highly doubtful wisdom to allow a situation to continue in which, for example, you may have this position continued for a long time. It might be a more intelligent approach to the whole problem, even for the State, to aid in breaking price levels there in the hope that you can get stability at new price levels and get regular employment at new price levels so far as these industries are concerned.

In the building trade you now have a situation which has not been with us for some years. For the first time for some years building craftsmen are idle, and for the first time for some years building trade workers are emigrating. That is a situation, surely, which we cannot contemplate with equanimity. It has been many a day since these building trade workers were idle. The fact that they are idle to-day, and are finding it difficult to get alternative employment in the industry and are beginning to emigrate again shows the need for steps to be taken here to correct whatever currents are responsible for creating a situation of that kind.

I think that, with respect to the building industry, a general feeling of insecurity is probably one of the factors which have brought about a curtailment in building trade operations; but I think the main factor has been that the banks are not financing the smaller builder and are cutting the credit of the smaller builder with the result that he is laying off his workers. The private builder, especially in the large cities, is doing a considerable amount of building work to-day, and if his credit is tightened, if the banks get him in their grip and squeeze him, his resources being so limited, he must immediately shed workers who will go to the employment exchange and when they find that there is no work there, will proceed to make inquiries as to where they can get employment in Britain.

I am quite sure that anybody concerned with employment here cannot feel reassured by a situation which is developing on these most unsatisfactory lines. A rise in unemployment is bad at any time, but one feature of a rise in unemployment which is likely to continue is that it means it is going to be harder for the unemployed man to get work. It is elementary to say that the more people that are out of work the harder it is for the unemployed man to get work. That means that persons will be idle for a longer period. It means, as well, that they will have to live for a prolonged period on rates of benefit which are not capable of sustaining them during the period they are unemployed.

I do not think that anybody in this House—again, irrespective of Party— would attempt to contend that the rates of unemployment benefit which we pay to-day are capable of sustaining those who have to depend on them. The rate of unemployment insurance benefit for a man to-day is 22/6 per week. If he has a wife, he will get an additional 7/6, and if he has two children, an additional 2/6 for each, so that the position of the unemployed man, whether he is a boot and shoe operative, a textile worker or a craftsman on a building scheme, is that, if he has a wife and two children, he has to live to-day on 35/- per week. That is bad for one week. What must it be if he has to try to live on that for a number of weeks, and who knows how many weeks he will have to live on it, if we get into a situation of rapidly deteriorating employment?

Will anybody attempt to say to-day that there is any place in this country where a man used to regular employment could live with his wife and two children, could pay rent, buy foodstuffs such as meat and milk, buy firing, clothes, and boots and shoes for the kiddies on an income of 35/- per week? That is what we expect him to live on if he is unemployed, and that is the best rate, because if he is receiving unemployment assistance, he gets substantially less than that. With a wife and five or six children, he might get as low as 23/- per week in some areas, where he had no unemployment insurance contributions to his credit. I do not imagine that any Deputy will attempt to defend these rates of benefit. I think they are indefensible in the circumstances in which we live to-day, and that situation is made all the more acute for those who are suffering from unemployment by reason of price increases.

Nobody has attempted to deny that price increases have taken place over the past 12 or 18 months, price increases which, in many cases, are due to external causes and, in some cases, to internal causes. Let it be perfectly clear that everyone in the House has acknowledged the fact that price increases have taken place. It does not matter who is in office, so far as the unemployed man is concerned, when prices are going up and his rate of benefit is the same. For him, it is hardship one way or the other, unless he gets deliverance from his hardship. It will not be denied, either, that in recent months prices have risen even more steeply than previously, and these rises which took place recently were on top of previous increases, and it all makes a pyramid of higher living costs, so far as the unemployed man is concerned. I know of no condition present in this country to-day which excuses the payment of these inordinately low rates of benefits to our unemployed people, but I do say that the figures I have quoted, the price levels which we know to be running to-day and the low rates of benefit paid to our unemployed people, justify support for this motion on every human consideration.

It may be asked—it probably will be asked—where is the money to come from in order to meet the claim set out in this motion for an increase in the rates of benefit? I think the money is there and I do not think that, so far as the Government is concerned, the grant of increases in this case need impose any heavy burden, if indeed any burden whatever, upon the State, at least for some time to come. According to official figures, there stood in the Unemployment Fund Account in 1949 a sum of £874,000. The figure had been rising by between £200,000 and £300,000 in each of the years preceding 1949, and it is reasonable therefore to assume that the figure has increased substantially since 1949. That sum of money is there at the moment. It represents the surplus which is available after benefits have been paid out of the contributions which are legitimately payable to the fund, and that sum of money could be made available, because it is intended to be the pool from which workers draw benefit, for the purpose of augmenting the existing rates of unemployment insurance. I know of no reason why it cannot be used for this purpose, but that is not all the money there is available.

If the Minister takes the trouble to inquire, he will find that, in 1945, the Government passed a Bill for the purpose of keeping those who joined the Army in unemployment insurance benefit, while in the Army, and it contracted under that Act to put into the Unemployment Insurance Fund a certain contribution each week in respect of every person who joined the Army. The Government promised those who joined the Army that, when they came out, they would be entitled to draw unemployment insurance benefit, but the strange part of this whole deal was that the Government sent those who were discharged from the Army to the employment exchanges throughout the country, told them to claim benefit there if they were unemployed and paid them out of the fund which had been accumulated by the insured worker, but, so far, the Government has not put into the fund the money it contracted to pay under the 1945 Act in respect of those who joined the Army.

The situation we have to-day is that the State owes the Unemployment Insurance Fund, I think, not less than £1,250,000. That sum of £1,250,000 is a debt morally and legally due to the fund by the State. The State contracted to pay it under the 1945 Unemployment Insurance Act, but, in fact, the State has raided the fund by putting on to it persons for whom the State paid no contributions. In other words, the State gave these people a lien to the fund, as they were entitled to do, but they were entitled to give it only when they paid the contributions for them. The State has paid out the money to these people who claimed benefit on discharge from the Army, but the State itself has defaulted to the extent of £1,250,000.

That is not a very creditable situation and it is a situation which ought to be remedied, because, if that sum which the State owes to the Unemployment Insurance Fund were available, with the sum of more than £1,000,000 now there, there should be no difficulty whatever in acceding to the claim made in this motion that the rates of unemployment insurance benefit and unemployment assistance should be increased, in view of (1) the rise in prices and (2) developing unemployment. All that money—it must be nearly £2,250,000 or £2,500,000—should be available in that kitty for the purpose of financing rates of benefit to insured workers.

If the State paid what it owes and utilised money which is already there in consultation with those who represent the workers, then I am quite sure the lot of the unemployed workers could be considerably eased thereby in the crisis through which we are now passing.

The utilisation of that money need not in any way cause subsequent embarrassment. It was contemplated under the comprehensive social security scheme that whatever money was standing in these funds—such as the National Health Insurance Fund, the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund—would be allowed to remain in the funds and that the income in the form of investments would go into the new fund that would be created or the new annual allocation which may be decided upon and in that way help to meet the annual charges that had to be met. If the State now uses all or a portion of the moneys in or due to the Unemployment Insurance Fund for the purpose of increasing existing unemployment insurance and assistance benefits, then no serious harm is done. The only difficulty and the only difference is—and both are relatively slight—that the State only under a new and comprehensive scheme, will not have these annual dividends coming in, at least so far as the Unemployment Insurance Fund is concerned and to that extent will, therefore, have to make good by contributions or allocations from Exchequer sources whatever would be lost by utilising the fund to increase the rate of benefit at this stage. But for the State that presents no difficulty. The State can make good whatever may be lost by using these funds for that purpose, by paying a greater sum annually to finance a comprehensive scheme and that can be done in the knowledge that the money so used from the Unemployment Insurance Fund was very largely workers' contributions, and was money well spent in tiding unemployed workers over their present difficulty.

I think I have shown by facts based on official figures that unemployment has increased substantially as compared with this time 12 months ago, that it has really increased rapidly in recent months, and that the tendency is for the figures of unemployed persons to rise still further. I think I have shown—and, in any case, I do not think it will be contested—that prices have risen and are continuing to rise, and I think I have shown, by the exercise of ordinary common sense and by a sense of fair play, that the present rates of unemployment insurance benefit and unemployment assistance benefit are inadequate to sustain those whom they are intended to help, especially in present circumstances. I think I have shown, too, that money is available to meet the reasonable claims set out in the motion. Having established, therefore, that the present rates are inadequate, that unemployment is rising, that prices have risen and are rising, and that money is available, the Government ought, in these circumstances, approach this whole matter in a non-Party spirit, and I hope they will find it possible to accept the claim set out in the motion.

Mr. Larkin

I second the motion. It is important when considering the terms of the motion that we should try to approach it, as Deputy Norton has suggested, on a non-partisan basis in respect of the position of unemployed men and women and the responsibility that members of all Parties bear to them. It appears to me that we should also approach it on a non-partisan basis because of what is implied in respect of our whole economy by a growth in unemployment and the very dangerous consequences that could arise if we failed to take note not merely of the absolute increase, but of the trends revealed by a breakdown of the figures.

If a situation develops in this country in which we have growing unemployment, unemployment having its basis primarily in manufacturing industries, then we have got an economic sore which it is going to be almost impossible to isolate and which will have growing repercussions on an ever-widening circle of wage and salary earners. Therefore the motion is important, not merely from the aspect of drawing attention to the needs of those who are idle but also to try and secure attention for the situation that is surrounding us at the moment. Deputy Norton, moving the motion, referred to the official figures in so far as the register of unemployed is concerned. When, in September, these figures started to attract attention, many of us felt that it was a passing phase and that with the entry of the new year we would find the usual restoration of economic improvement and growing employment again. It is not merely remarkable that at the moment we have 10,000 more on the live register to-day than we had 12 months ago; it is not only remarkable that last year witnessed an increase in that register of some 16 per cent. or that, more important still, there was an increase in the number of those registered as having claims current— and are constituted in the main of workers who are generally employed in insurable employment and have at least for some years enjoyed constant and comparatively well-paid employment—but that whereas during 1951, during each month of that year as compared with 1950, up to the month of September, we had either stability in our unemployment figures or a reduction, starting with September, month by month, there has been an increase in the absolute figure as compared with the same month in the previous year and the increase has grown progressively greater with each month. Even the normal factor that has been witnessed generally towards the end of January or the commencement of February in each year, that of a drop in unemployment figures, is absent this year, and we are faced with the possibility, so far as the latest official figures are concerned, if not of a continuance of that increase at least of a maintenance of the increased figure for total unemployment.

At present our unemployment rate is very much greater than that in England—and naturally no one desires to make any comparison. It is also greater than in Northern Ireland, and the increase has been greater and yet, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, many persons, both those associated with the Government and those associated with the Opposition, are openly speaking of it as of a grave character. So where there is a question that we do take a grave view of this situation, it is not done in any sense of trying to stigmatise the Government nor are we seeking at the moment to try to attach political causes to this development. The fact is that we have a situation which must concern us all, and it is our responsibility to know the situation and to see what remedy can be applied, both to arrest and retrieve it, and to give some succour to those directly affected. I mentioned already that one of the worst aspects of this growth of unemployment is its direct effect upon some of our most important manufacturing industries, particularly clothing, textiles, boots and shoes. While the position in the boot and shoe trade is not as bad as that of the clothing trade, it must be regarded as almost catastrophic. According to the figures I have been given by the National Union of Boot and Shoe Workers, who have records of their idle members, the actual position at the moment is that of the 12,000 employees in that industry as a whole 2,600 are working short-time and only 1,600 are fully employed. When one realises that in a town like Dundalk the boot and shoe industry is almost basic to the whole economy there, one understands the fearful economic significance of the falling off in employment to a town like that which, for quite a number of years, has enjoyed such a wave of prosperity. It is correct to say that in the clothing trade almost no workers are employed full-time, and the textile trade—cotton, woollen and worsted—is also, though probably not to the same extent, very seriously affected, as are also new industries towards the establishment and maintenance of which the Irish people as a whole have made very great sacrifices.

We can readily visualise them drifting into a period, not merely of economic decline but of economic depression unless we look for a solution. The building trade has been mentioned and in Dublin alone, for probably the first time in many years, the Amalgamated Union of Wood Workers announce that 500 carpenters are unemployed, also plasterers, which is a phenomenon we have not seen in Dublin since before the war, and goodness knows how many builders' labourers are unemployed at the moment. The whole situation is perilous and one which should be of the greatest concern to all of us.

On top of the situation I have depicted we have a similar rural situation. Again we are not concerned with political arguments or with controversy except to note that in county after county considerable numbers of men are idle. It may be because the money already voted for schemes has been expended with probably greater speed than wisdom, that there has been a reduced amount of money made available or that the schemes are delayed waiting for sanction either locally or centrally. At any rate, the result is idle men. These are factors with which we should concern ourselves very particularly.

In addition to our unemployment figures, we have also got the problem of emigration. This is a loss which is felt, not merely in the matter of individual citizens, but more so because employment is radically affected. Many of our new industries are losing highly-trained technical workers who have been trained at very considerable cost and who have in some cases been sent to other countries for their training. Now, however, they are seeking work elsewhere. Even if we were fortunate enough to have a rapid recovery, there is the possibility that when that recovery comes about we will have shortages of trained workers. That, in itself, is a very serious problem so that when the motion draws attention to the serious situation, it is one which is established by official figures, and one on which we should not be swayed by political differences. The other portions of the motion are equally self-evident. It is true that it is the duty of a Government, regardless of what Government it is, to take measures to restore the former level of commercial and industrial activity.

I am quite sure this Government would not repudiate that responsibility no more than any other Government, even though it may point out that the farmers of the motion have not made any practical contribution as regards suggested measures to meet the situation. But they cannot criticise us for asking for that attention. At the same time, we have got to try to make our contribution. In so far as industrial and commercial employment is concerned, I think, frankly, that we cannot place a finger on any single factor which is causing the present situation. It is now clearly established, regardless of the confusion some months ago, that, so far as our main manufacturing industries are concerned—clothing, textiles, boots and shoes—increased imports during 1951 have practically played no part in creating the present problem. The increase in the volume is almost, in the main, due to higher prices. Consequently, if we check the volume very carefully, we will not find an answer in the case of reduced imports. The question of consumers' resistance to high prices is probably one of the definite factors. Even though the Government feel that they must draw the most serious attention of all concerned to what they regard as the present economic position of the country, it seems to me that they should realise that pessimism and continuous emphasis on the economic difficulties facing us can have repercussions, and I personally feel that a little optimism is called for now if we are not going to continue to do grave harm to our industries and to our commercial activity. Quite clearly, if consumers are already in resistance against high prices, and are already deferring their buying, they will be even more inclined to do so if there is evidence that there are still greater economic difficulties facing them and that there may be greater financial burdens placed upon them. The Government should make its contribution by expressing optimism and its belief in the immediate future of Ireland's economy.

It has been denied that the banks have been restricting credit and figures have been given by the banks to show the increased accommodation provided. That does not answer the question. If large concerns in this country —we know they have done so—seek bank accommodation to purchase increased supplies of raw materials, the whole of that increased accommodation could be absorbed by some half-dozen units, while at the same time there could be increased pressure on small firms and on individuals and growing reluctance on the part of the banks to make accommodation. I have no personal contact with bank managers, but since we had our previous discussion in this House I have been told on two occasions by bank managers that they are operating in that direction. I do not think there is any doubt about it. The Government can suggest to the banks that, in the interests of the banks themselves, as well as in the whole economy, there should be a less rigorous attitude towards this question of accommodation, particularly with reference to the small employer and more especially in relation to the building trade.

On the question of consumption, I notice that the Tánaiste expressed the view that we have the problem of consumers' resistance, that we have a certain amount of surplus goods on hands and that we must wait for these to work themselves off. I feel that a really serious and determined effort should be made to bring about even the smallest reduction in prices. The psychological effect of that would be tremendous. I personally feel that this should be done and that, even though it might prove a burden upon manufacturers and traders for a certain period, it would be ultimately for their own good. If they proceed on the road on which they are travelling now, they may find themselves in a much greater crisis than is facing them at present. It has been a good trading maxim to cut one's losses in order to strengthen one's economy and to move forward. Traders and manufacturers should face realities and make a contribution towards the restoration of consumers' confidence and towards a reduction in the great scepticism felt by consumers on the justification for the present price level.

I think it is correct to say—and many members of local authorities will probably speak on this with greater force than I can—that there has been difficulty in respect of departmental delays in regard to housing and various other local government activities. We are agreed that there has to be a careful check, but if those delays are creating stoppages and placing men out of work at the present time they are unpardonable, and no Government should permit them. There should be a careful examination of that.

So far, in Dublin, we have been lucky in the sense that corporation schemes have been moving ahead, but it is, I understand, likely that towards the end of this year they may run into difficulties in regard to finance, sites and the question of main drainage. But in so far as private building is concerned, there is widespead complaints of the delay. When a small builder, employing 50, 100 or 150 men, is unable to obtain the money rightfully due to him, there is no use in expecting him to be able to pass these men on to another scheme and keep them all employed. He must lay them off. Only yesterday I came up against that problem, and it seems this week 30 labourers are going to be laid off a scheme, whereas, if the money had been paid over, that would not be necessary. I am not blaming anybody, I am merely mentioning the fact that those 30 men would have immediately moved on to another scheme instead of having to be dismissed. When we multiply that by ten, 20 or 100, we start to get our present unemployment problem.

We should again look at this question of public works. It is a recognised economic measure to prime the pump. There is no better way of doing it, at least in this country, than in respect of our public works—roads and other local authority activities. If there is inadequate money to allow the local authorities to continue until the end of the financial year, some provision should be made for it, and the proposition should be carefully examined in respect of the coming year. Quite clearly, whatever money we spend in providing employment for our own people in the rural areas, none of that will be saved; it is not going to go into the banks to blocked accounts; it will not be withheld from the economy. It will pass right through the whole economic body and will ease the problem not only in many homes but also will ease the problem facing our manufacturing industries.

Finally, the main purpose of the motion is to draw attention to the personal economic position of the idle men and women while existing on benefit or assistance rates. I can see no possible grounds upon which there can be any difference there. Everyone in this House, with certain individual exceptions, every Party in this House, has committed itself publicly to a scheme of social security. One of the main features of it was to provide increased benefits in regard to unemployment insurance. It is idle at the moment to argue why this is not in force to-day, but surely we can agree that if for any reason these increased benefits are not now available to the idle men and women in their increased numbers, as a temporary expedient pending the passing through this House of the necessary legislation, we could provide these increased benefits to meet this present situation.

It is not merely a question of providing increased money for individual living purposes to men and women. It is again an economic factor. By providing this increased amount of money we are increasing spending power. We are making available to a very large mass of consumers money they can spend on Irish manufactured goods, and by this means make a contribution to their re-employment and the re-employment of their fellow-workers.

I noticed that some two weeks ago reference was made to this motion by Deputy Dr. Browne. I would suggest, and I do it with all deference, that whatever may be our political feelings either in regard to the past, present, or future, each and every one of us has, not merely a political responsibility but a personal responsibility to those idle men and women. I think that this motion, in so far as its main purpose is to seek a greater volume of relief for those 74,000 men and women, is one that calls for the support of every member of the House. The men and women outside this House whose problem we are discussing to-night have a claim on each one of us irrespective of political or Party affiliations or what our political standpoint is.

General Mulcahy

I hope it will be possible for the Government to accept this motion in the spirit in which it has been spoken to by the proposer and the seconder of it. The motion here posits that there is at the present moment unemployment, that there is a tendency to greater unemployment and that there is necessity for making those people who are unemployed feel hope for the future and feel that while they are unemployed and in their present circumstances a better provision is made for their maintenance.

Deputy Larkin asks us to bring into the situation an atmosphere of optimism. I feel that it is vitally important that the Government, in its reception of this motion, would do something to bring that about, because I feel that, to be discussing to-day the motion that is here, should make us feel that we are in a very dangerous situation. Alongside us in Great Britain we have a people who are just getting the wheels moving for the expenditure in a couple of years of £4,000,000,000 on arms. If our workers here, whether in agriculture or manufacturing industries, see unemployment, even though they are not themselves at present unemployed, there is inevitably a drag on them to go over to Britain into a situation in which there is plenty of well-paid employment apparently waiting for them and employment that is going to be secure for a fairly definite period of time. I think that is an element in the situation that should be taken into consideration.

I asked in a supplementary question to the Minister for Finance, yesterday, was there a possibility that the Government would introduce the Budget at an early period, earlier than usual, in order to determine the financial approach to their present situation and the present position they have been complaining of. I did not ask that lightly, because I felt it to be vitally important that we should know where we stand in regard to the general Government and parliamentary approach to the whole economic situation and in regard to what our general formula is to be in dealing with the matter at the earliest possible moment. In view of all that has been said and done in recent months, in view of the condition in which we are, and if there is no prospect of our having a review of almost a budgetary kind on our general approach to the immediate economic programmes and our financing of them, then, I think, that the Government's approach to this motion should be such as would show that they wanted to invite people to be confident and to be optimistic in regard to the future, and that they were going to approach the discussion of unemployment and economic matters in the spirit in which both the mover and the seconder of this motion have asked.

I, too, would desire to discuss anything that has to be discussed on this motion in a way that would not imply that there was any reason for discussing it in a purely Party spirit or for scoring off the Government or any other person in the place. I certainly would ask the Minister and those on the Government Benches to believe that if anything I say with regard to the facts of the situation will rub them the wrong way, I am urging, nevertheless, at the same time that it is imperative in our discussion to look at things factually with a responsibility, not only to the people who are unemployed to-day, but the people who are employed to-day and who may be unemployed to-morrow.

The actual facts of the situation have been covered to some extent by the figures given by Deputy Norton, but the position has been brought about by a certain sequence of events. First, we have had the political criticism and comments and, from our point of view, misrepresentations of the economic policy pursued by the last Government. Coming on top of that we had the position as regards the banks. There was a certain amount of stockpiling definitely invited by the last Government as a policy. These stocks of various kinds were definitely laid in, and it is a remarkable thing to me that the Government so impressed people with the possibility of war being round the corner, that they took up an attitude, as I believe they definitely have done, in their dealings and discussions with the banks which resulted in getting the banks to withdraw moneys that have been made available for stockpiling.

At any rate, anybody connected with the commercial life of the country knows, as Deputy Larkin pointed out, that instructions had been given to the banks to pull back credit. The fact that the bank deposits at the present moment show no sign of decrease is no criterion of the present situation. The general position is that the people who have got money for stockpiling have been advised by the banks that they must make very substantial reductions in their overdrafts by May. Because they have been warned, they have been pressed to reduce their overdrafts. They have been told that any moneys that have been given them must be wiped out by May, and because of that they have stopped buying. They have been to some extent disposing of their stocks, and the very people who think there are difficulties are the people who have forced the disgorging of stocks that were piled.

Captain Cowan

Can the Deputy say who gave those instructions to the banks?

General Mulcahy

Were I asked for a personal opinion I would say that the Government did. However, the Deputy was not here when this debate was initiated. I do not want to make assertions of any particular kind that will obscure the things we are talking about. We are talking about the fact that credit, given for stockpiling, has been pulled back and that there is an order still standing and instructions to the banks which are to be kept very confidential as far as the directing spirit of the banks are concerned and must not be sent down amongst the rank and file of officials. There has to be a very strong tightening down on credit. That has brought about the fact that stocks which were brought into being for an emergency are being dissipated and the people who have these stocks have stopped buying. They do not know when that impulse to buy again will be restored. It will not be restored until the general position with regard to the Government's approach to the economic situation is generally made clear.

Not only is there unemployment but a very serious situation has also been created, that of short time. There is a certain amount of unemployment in the building industry and it is very definitely felt that there will be very substantial unemployment in the building industry in the City of Dublin in six or seven months time. Figures have been quoted for last September but by the time figures are quoted for next September the feeling in the building industry in the city is that these figures will be very substantially greater. There is that feeling in the building industry at the moment and there is a drag on our building operatives who have to go and take work elsewhere. All this is going to be felt for the next couple of years. That feeling is very definitely there.

In that connection, I think that while the Dublin Corporation are only beginning now to talk about what their financial requirements are, it is a matter of urgent importance to the Dublin Corporation that it should know from the Government what they are going to do with regard to getting the £5,000,000 which the Dublin Corporation require. If there is a feeling that the building industry in the City of Dublin is going to be substantially reduced in its activities by September next, but that the Dublin Corporation schemes are going to go ahead and that the Government is going to assist the corporation in regard to these schemes, that would be, I believe, one of the real, practical things which would restore a certain feeling of optimism.

Captain Cowan

Dublin Corporation have no fears in regard to the financial position at all.

General Mulcahy

If the last Government had not intervened the corporation either would not have got the money or would have got it at a substantially greater cost than that at which they got it. We have had, before the Deputy came to grace the House, discussions with the Government on this question of the Dublin Corporation finances, and if the Deputy is able to assure us that the Government have radically changed their approach in regard to their responsibility to the Dublin Corporation and its moneys, and the amount it will have to pay for them, it would be helpful to the future situation.

Captain Cowan

Dublin Corporation have no worry in regard to finance at the moment.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy can get up and say that.

Captain Cowan

I am saying that.

General Mulcahy

But I am speaking here on an occasion in which we want the facts brought out simply and clearly.

Captain Cowan

I am speaking as a member of Dublin Corporation.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy is just interrupting the debate in an unhelpful way at the moment.

Captain Cowan

I am telling the truth.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cowan should allow Deputy Mulcahy to continue without interruption.

Captain Cowan

I am just stating what is a fact.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy is taking on himself a responsibility and a duty with which I do not think the House is prepared to shoulder him at the present moment—completely, at any rate; he is speaking for the Government.

Captain Cowan

Dublin Corporation have no worries.

Mr. MacBride

Is Deputy Cowan representative of Dublin Corporation in this House?

Captain Cowan

He is a member of Dublin Corporation—elected there.

General Mulcahy

I would sit down in order to clear up this point at the earliest possible moment if the Minister would say whether Dublin Corporation will get this money and get it at terms that are in keeping with the ideas expressed when the Government discussed the matter with the banks on behalf of Dublin Corporation. It would be a great help, but perhaps it would be more orderly to allow the Minister to deal with that matter when he intervenes in the debate in the ordinary way.

There is another element in the building situation that would require attention. Normally, a very considerable amount of repair work is a valuable part of the employment given in the building trade throughout the country. I understand that the operations of the Valuation Office at the present moment are holding up repair work in many directions, particularly in the City of Dublin. That is working very unfavourably on building employment. It is a matter that could very well be generally attended to. With regard to one aspect of the financial position and the Government's approach generally, it has been intimated to us that what we want is a kind of austerity policy. An austerity policy pursued in this country on a basis similar to that of the policy pursued in Great Britain and in a way that flows from that policy will have on this country results entirely different from the point of view of employment to the results of that policy in Great Britain. The policy of austerity in Great Britain changes the nature of the people's employment. It results in people being transferred from one class of employment to another. Although they are prevented from using the motor cars they make, they are, nevertheless, employed in making motor cars which are being used for export. To adopt their approach both to the handling of the credit situation and to an austerity programme would be disastrous to this country, although that policy might be necessary and healthy in Great Britain.

Again, there is the question of the general atmosphere in which we discuss these things here. The Government's statement of the financial situation was an attempt to confuse the people. The situation demands that that attempt at confusion be withdrawn and that attempts to blind the people by passion and by differences arising out of the past be wiped out of existence.

The Minister for Finance is going over to Great Britain now to deal with very urgent and important matters. Nevertheless we have the Irish Press of January 26th, speaking of previous occasions when Irish leaders went to Great Britain to discuss matters of vital importance to the people here. We are given a picture of the Irish leaders of the time who went over to make a treaty, and they are described as “foolish and reckless leaders.” If we are to discuss vital economic and social matters which are of such urgency to-day, we need a situation where members and leaders of this House would not outside the House write in terms of that kind.

We have a problem of unemployment and a likelihood of more unemployment arising. That we know, and we can see a definite trend. We have the problem of maintaining those who are unemployed, while just outside our doors there is a very definite drag on our people out of the country. The whole thing goes even wider than that, and the next couple of months will show the question in greater detail to us.

Deputy Larkin spoke of the repercussions on the salaried and other sections if there were a considerable amount of unemployment. One of the things that is creating, tending to create and perhaps increase unemployment among the workers of this country is the fact that vital classes are being broken and uprooted. The workers in the agricultural industry are being reduced in number as a result of the Government's approach to the development of agriculture. The Minister for Finance the other day declared that certain circumstances pointed to the collapse of the inter-Party Government's approach to agriculture. They are misrepresenting that position. The number of workers in agriculture is diminishing, and the middle income class is being broken by economic circumstances which are squeezing them between taxation and the rising cost of living. That reduction in agricultural employment and the position of the middle classes are vital factors which affect the strength of our economy. But for these circumstances we would be able to keep in work the persons at present employed in the building industry and increase that number.

I hope that the Government realise the spirit in which this motion is put before them. We want them to realise that there is unemployment and a trend towards greater unemployment. There is outside that the fact that we are going to be stripped of our workers, their value to us and the technical skill they have for us, unless there is a constructive approach. A constructive approach to the motion involves a constructive approach to our general finances and our general economy.

Mr. Lemass

I would like to begin by expressing appreciation of the restraint shown by Deputies Norton and Larkin in their speeches supporting this motion and of the fact that Deputy Mulcahy followed their example. When the motion was tabled I confess that I did not know whether it was intended to be an occasion for serious debate on a serious topic or a manoeuvre in Party warfare. I am glad that any unworthy suspicions I had of the subjects have been allayed.

We have, in the matter to which this motion refers, difficult problems to resolve. Deputy Larkin urged that we should strike a note of optimism and expressed the view that, if we did, we would have economic benefits. I do not think it is a matter for either optimism or pessimism; I think it is realism that we require now because, if we have difficulties, as has been stressed by the Deputies who have spoken, difficulties actually existing now or anticipated during the course of the year, we cannot hope to find a way around them unless we understand fully their character and their origin.

At any rate, I would have a personal problem in following Deputy Larkin's advice because I have been arguing here for a considerable time past, both as a member of the Government and before that as a member of the Opposition, that unless there was a change in this country—and I was thinking of a change in the public outlook upon the economic problems of the country as much as of a change in Government policy — the economic indicators pointed inevitably to the arrival sooner or later of a time at which we would experience a lowering of our standard of living manifested through rising prices and rising unemployment.

That is the situation which has begun to develop during last year. Nobody could have expected that it would come suddenly upon us. It was clearly to be anticipated that it would develop gradually and I think we must take it that the first signs of its coming are with us now and, if we are to take effective action to check that trend, it is now we have to do it. We may not agree as to the action that will be most effective but we can at least now regard it as common ground that action is required. That is a gain. We have all been talking, sometimes acrimoniously, sometimes controversially, sometimes constructively, about these matters but I think it is true that the great majority of the people of the country regard these economic and financial problems as so much politicians' talk unlikely to affect them ever in their own daily lives.

Mr. Morrissey

It is hard to blame them for that.

Mr. Lemass

Now, however, it will become clear, I think, that there are forces at work which will affect people in their daily lives, either through the impact of prices upon the cost of living or through the diminution of trade leading to unemployment. That, in my view, is precisely the situation towards which all Government activity must be directed during the course of this year.

Deputy Larkin will excuse me if this does not sound as optimistic as he would wish—I do not think it will be easy to check the trend that is now developing. We have to try but if we are to succeed we will need, not merely co-operation in the Dáil, but a great deal more understanding of our problems outside the Dáil.

We have here this problem of increased unemployment in industry. I do not want to be dogmatic about it. I have discussed it with trade associations, with trade union organisations and, perhaps more profitably, privately with individual industrial managers and workers and I have tried to build up out of all the information made available to me a picture of what is happening and to get out of it an explanation of its cause.

In my view—and I put this forward with all due reserve—in the industries that have been mentioned here, the clothing, textile, boot and shoe trades, the essential problem is that the costs of production have pushed prices to the point at which the public is not prepared to keep on buying in the same volume as previously. In relation to these trades there is no solution now to be found by increasing protection or by action of any sort designed to exclude imported products. In respect of the categories of goods of those classes which are capable of being produced in Irish factories, the measures have already been taken which ensure that the home market is available for these factories and, in the main, it is true to say that these factories have developed to the point at which they are capable of supplying the maximum demand likely ever to develop in any foreseeable time in this country.

It is clear, therefore, that any contraction in demand, any factors operating to induce people to buy less, are bound to have repercussions upon the output and the employment given in these industries. What has happened over the past six months is that there has been—I think Deputy Norton called it a buyers' strike—at any rate, evidence that prices had passed the point at which the public were prepared to buy in the same volume as previously.

That situation, it is true, has been accentuated by the existence of abnormal stocks in the hands of traders. I am not going to strike a controversial note there. May I confess that I think we are all inclined to exaggerate during our political controversies the influence of Government exhortations upon traders? I do not think the volume of stocks in the hands of traders was influenced to any great extent by the exhortations of my predecessors at the beginning of last year or at the end of the previous year. No doubt, the accumulation of stocks was facilitated by the exceptional import facilities that were given but no trader would have availed of those facilities unless he thought it would pay him.

General Mulcahy

The influence of the open door. If the Government opened a few doors——

Mr. Lemass

The stocks came in.

General Mulcahy

——it would be worth a lot of exhortations.

Mr. Lemass

It is true that sentiment in trade favoured the accumulation of stocks 12 months ago. I have personal knowledge of that in connection with some businesses that I was connected with. I was in contact with people amongst whom matters of policy in that regard were discussed daily, and I know that there was a strong sentiment in favour of keeping stocks at maximum levels in the expectation either that supply difficulties would emerge due to the international situation or that prices would keep on rising and that the man with the highest stocks would be most likely to benefit.

That sentiment changed completely towards the end of last year. That was not so merely in this country; it was so throughout the whole world. I have read reports published by American banks. I have seen translations of reports published by French, Belgian and other European banks, and we all have more intimate knowledge, perhaps, of the situation in Britain and Northern Ireland.

Whether it was the fall in wool prices, accompanied by the fall in certain other raw material prices—and the price of hides dropped by more than half and must have had some effect upon the position in the leather and boot and shoe trades—or the talk that was then prevalent of peace in Korea and the possibility of a European settlement, or a combination of all these things, in every country in the world traders took the decision to curtail stocks. It is difficult to say that they took the wrong decision. Whether one forms that conclusion or not depends upon one's estimate of what is going to happen in the future.

I do not think that this situation is affected one way or the other by the question of bank credit. We could have gone to the banks and have said: "We want you to keep on giving extended credit facilities to enable traders to retain these abnormal stocks that they are holding." I do not think traders would have retained those stocks. I think the sentiment in favour of reducing risks on stocks was so strong that even the offer of liberal bank accommodation would not have prevented their liquidation. In any event, even if it had happened, it would only postpone to a later date the situation we are now dealing with. Sooner or later, the conditions of trade would have forced liquidation of those stocks on traders and at that stage there would be a temporary curtailment of orders to Irish factories.

May I say as definitely as I can that the Government gave no instruction or advice to the banks to curtail credit facilities? May I say also that, while I do not pretend to be familiar with the private instructions which bank directors may have given to their branch managers, in so far as I have been made aware of them, while there was definite warning against increasing credit facilities, I did not see in them any suggestion that there should be curtailment as a matter of general policy?

I want to say this also, and it is true whether Deputies believe it or not. Whenever people spoke to me about economic difficulties arising out of the restriction of bank credit, I asked for particulars of specific cases, and I have not got them yet. I do not say that I got no case. I got some cases which I examined and in which it seemed to me that the only issue that arose was the creditworthiness of the borrower, and the matter was dealt with on ordinary banking principles. I am not attempting to make any defence whatever of the policy the banks are pursuing. I do not profess to know intimately what that policy is, but I do want to say that there has not been given to them any decision by the Government to curtail credit, nor any advice to that effect. I have said here already that they appear to have given credit liberally for the purpose of stockpiling early last year. I think it would be a matter on which I would feel obliged to make comment if they failed to give equal assistance to a policy of developing our production if and whenever that is possible and to the extent that the banks can help it on.

The main problem is, however, one of price. I am convinced of that. If there is, as undoubtedly is the case, a temporary contraction of orders to factories by reason of the desire of traders to reduce their stocks, that situation will pass sooner or later. It may pass in some industries more quickly than in others as some stocks are turned over more rapidly than others. There are signs in some industries that it is passing already. If, however, there has been a definite curtailment in total demand by reason of public reaction to the present level of prices, that is a more difficult situation to deal with. May I say that the solution of that difficulty is not a matter for the Government alone. In fact, it is not obvious that the Government can do much about it. We have, by curtailing quotas and reimposing or increasing tariffs, taken measures to ensure that whatever market is there, it will be available to Irish factories, but, if there is to be an expansion of production for a greater consumption in that market, it might be brought about by reason of the action of managements and trade unions in combination to secure more economic methods of working. That has happened in individual cases. In so far as there has been a contraction in the market for goods where Irish factories are capable of supplying the maximum demand that the market can generate, then some firms by better working methods or a better managerial policy have still been able to keep in full activity. I know individual cases, even in trades which had been affected by this recession in recent months, where full activity is still proceeding. That would appear to suggest that the managers and the workers there, realising the problem they were faced with, were able to devise methods of operation which could be usefully copied in other similar concerns.

What I have said regarding certain industries applies in other directions as well. Even in respect to certain services—and I include transport in this regard—the rise in prices has contracted the demand and is tending to create problems in regard to employment in these services also, unless we can by more economic methods of working get prices down again. Without going into any old controversies or attempting to put the blame on any shoulders for the situation which has developed, but solely because reference was made here to pump-priming, I want to express the view that this situation which has developed, this inflation of cost in industry and in the operation of various services, has been the outcome not merely of rising prices but of the general inflationary situation which has existed, not alone in this country but in other countries for some years past. It is true that in most industries the cost of purchased materials is the predominant factor in determining prices. There is no industry, I think, where material costs represent less than 50 per cent. of the ex-factory price. In some industries, material cost is as high as 90 per cent. of the ex-factory price. In this country a very high proportion of the materials used in industries are imported and we cannot do much about the cost of them. We have got to get them at whatever the cost. Because of the failure of our traditional supplier to give us the quantities we need, we have been forced to go abroad into other markets and to buy at very high prices the materials that we need to keep industry going. In so far as the solution of our industrial problems may be governed by prices, it must be by a concentration on costs that we can control, costs in our own factories. Because of the inflationary situation and because we have had a continuous rise in prices over the last 18 months or so, there has grown up, not merely in industry but in the country generally, a mentality which believes that costs do not matter.

That has been supported by assertions, made, I think, without any very great examination of their accuracy, that higher costs can be absorbed by profits without any reaction on prices. Whatever justification there may have been for these assertions in the past, in the case of some industries there can be no such belief now, because I think we are likely to be far more worried at the prospect of a number of our industrial concerns making no profits this year than we are entitled to be about the profits they made in previous years. At any rate, it is a far more serious prospect for a high proportion of our industrial workers. I want to urge seriously on the Dáil and particularly upon members of the Labour Party and on those who have influence on the trade union movement that in the circumstances now prevailing and likely to develop during the course of the year the main preoccupation must be in maintaining and expanding employment and that other changes—even desirable and justifiable changes—should be subordinated to that end.

It is true that what I have now said applies in a large measure mainly to the fully protected industries that are developed to the point at which they are quite capable of handling all the country's requirements, but there are other industries catering for the home market which have not yet developed to the stage at which they can handle the requirements of the home market and who report that they are experiencing much keener competition from imports. The House is aware that a number of the pre-war duties were suspended during the war and have not yet been restored and where that keener competition from abroad is being experienced in these industries there is a movement in favour of the restoration of these pre-war duties or for increased protection in one form or another.

There is an issue of policy there to which I think the House should give consideration. We have had debates during the last few months about the effect of rising prices on social conditions here and about how desirable it would be if we could check the rise or get prices down again. Even in the course of this debate, the Deputies who advocated this motion spoke not merely of rising unemployment but of the problem created by the high price level. When the Government comes to consider these applications which it is getting from industries not protected at the moment for the restoration of pre-war duties on the ground that competition is now coming from abroad which they cannot meet even with maximum efficiency, then we have to take a decision between giving that protection and preserving the employment afforded by these industries or letting cheaper goods into the country. That is a decision we cannot avoid. It is true that most countries can and will export goods cheaper than they can sell them in the home market. Any industry with a fairly large home market can carry the whole of its overheads on its home sales and sell abroad without loss, and even at a profit, at a lower price than at home— and there is reappearing just now the bogey of Japanese competition. We all remember the exceptional problems which were created for us here pre-war by the extraordinary prices at which some Japanese products arrived. Not very many have come yet, but the indications are that at some stage, either this year or next year, that problem will arise again. A decision which this Government or any Government will have to take is whether it is better to concentrate on our own industries and on giving employment in our own industries—taking all precautions to assure that they are efficiently equipped and managed—or to let them go and get the temporary benefit of an inflow of cheaper goods from abroad. The Government favours putting the emphasis on production and employment here. We do that not merely in the interest of the workers, although that is a predominant consideration with us, but also because of the urgent need, as we see it, to redress the balance of payments position.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister tell us why it is that tariff racketeers never fear competition from anywhere but Japan?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think that is true—but Deputy Dillon can exercise his own phobias wherever he likes. I am trying to deal with the matter seriously.

Mr. Dillon

So am I.

Mr. Lemass

When the Government puts emphasis on maintaining and expanding production and employment here and is prepared to forgo, in order to get that, whatever temporary benefit may be secured by a fall in prices by allowing in restricted imports, I do not want it to be taken that we are prepared to give support to inefficient management or inefficient equipment or to the support of labour costs which, whether due to shorter hours or less work or higher rates, are higher than in corresponding industries in Great Britain. Deputies will understand that I am not making a general rule on that matter but if we have to make a decision in favour of employment for these workers in these industries, as against lower prices for the kinds of goods they produce by permitting imports, we expect those workers also to cooperate in making that policy effective by restraining their demands upon the industry and endeavouring to ensure the minimising of labour costs—I am not dealing now with wage rates—the labour costs of production by their methods of work.

Mr. Davin

Did you have a talk with the fresh meat people about the price of hides? It might bring down the price of boots.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy had better talk to Deputy Dillon. He knows all about that. I am liquidating the problems he left me—and not very easily either. I have not got the solution yet——

Mr. Dillon

The Minister is burdened with a surplus of hides?

Mr. Lemass

——for which we are now committed to a price substantially above the world price.

Mr. Dillon

Decontrol them.

Mr. Lemass

If it was as simple as all that I should have done so long ago.

Mr. Dillon

It will end your woe.

Mr. Davin

The Minister is not as simple as he looks.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Norton and Deputy Larkin referred to the impact of the rising prices on the community generally, and particularly on the classes who benefit under the social welfare schemes. Frankly, I do not see any prospect of a general fall in prices this year. Certainly that statement is true as far as food prices are concerned. The House is aware that there is some agitation amongst our farmers for higher prices for some food products, and even the present level of food prices does not help to sustain a level of agricultural wages comparable with those rates that urban industrial workers have established for themselves. I do not think we should hold out to the urban workers prospects of lower food prices if that means a situation in which even the present level of agricultural wages cannot be maintained. I do not know if Deputies share my view. If they see any way by which the producer can get higher prices and can pay higher wages, with lower prices to consumers, I shall be glad to hear of it. There may be some minor adjustment of marketing costs possible here and there, but the predominant factor is the price paid to Irish farmers—and we do not intend to reduce it. I do not think circumstances will arise this year or next year, or four or five years ahead, in which a fall in food prices, due to a reduction in prices paid to farmers, will come into effect. In fact, I should not regard it as reasonable for urban workers enjoying the rates of wages they have established for themselves to urge upon the Dáil or the Government any policy which would make it less easy to sustain the present level of agricultural wages— or even to urge a policy which would prevent a possible increase in these wages in the course of time.

It is, of course, possible to affect to some extent the cost of living by Government subsidies on food prices. We tried that policy in 1947. We adopted it then in the belief that there was a temporary peak in prices, that we could carry the country over that peak, get back to the previous position in regard to prices and get rid of the subsidies. That has not happened. The subsidies are now a very heavy burden on the Exchequer. Yet, the net benefit of all that expenditure is to reduce the cost of living by 2/- per head per week. If we were to double these subsidies, which would be impossible having regard to the financial position of the State, the resulting benefit would be comparatively small both in actual expenditure for each family and in relation to the cost-of-living index number. It is my personal view that we are not getting benefit in relief of social hardship for the expenditure we are undertaking upon food subsidies.

I should like to see if it is possible to get some means by which we can take that money and use it otherwise so as to give relief where it is required and not be giving it indiscriminately, as it is at present, to substantial classes in the community which are not, because of their economic circumstances, entitled to relief out of community resources. In any event, I cannot hold out the slightest prospect of a reduction in food prices through any extension of the subsidy system.

I want to get on to the second leg of the motion. The motion has three legs, one dealing with the general position in industry and the unemployment developing there, the second with public works, and the third with social welfare arrangements. Reference was made to public works and that is a wide term. I think the Deputies who moved the motion used it as applying only to expenditure upon roads, drainage projects and other works of that kind financed under the Local Authorities (Works) Act or under the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote. Using the term in its wider connotation as covering all works undertaken by public authorities and including expenditure by the Electricity Supply Board, Bord na Móna, on hospitals and similar desirable purposes, I agree fully with the suggestion that we must face increasing expenditure under that head. But I hope to see in the course of time emphasis coming off the less productive of these works and on to the more productive. Reference has been made to building. The Minister for Local Government tells me that he does not anticipate any diminution in house building by public authorities during the course of the year. At any rate, in so far as Government administration affects the volume of output of local authority housing, there will be no diminution and I am sure that the local authorities will not create any situation which may cause it. The position with regard to house building on private account may be affected by rising costs, but as yet there has been no evidence of a serious falling off. The Minister for Local Government tells me that applications for grants are still very high and that it is likely this year that the allocations will exceed last year. There is, of course, no certainly that those who apply for grants will proceed to build, but in so far as the trend of the applications indicates the position, there has been no diminution, but quite the reverse.

It is true, however, that building is extremely sensitive to economic conditions. Up to the present building costs have continued to rise. There is no sign yet of any tendency for any building material to fall in price. I think that it is unlikely there will be a fall in price. All metal goods will probably continue to rise. The timber situation—and there was quite a spectacular rise in the cost of timber over the last few months—is perhaps less certain. I note that the British Government are taking rather drastic steps to try to remedy that situation as it affects them. I could not, however, myself hold out any expectation that building costs are likely to go down. Nevertheless, as I have said, building on private account, which the Government cannot influence, is sensitive to economic conditions, and we have had under consideration the possibility of there being some falling off either because the price has pushed building operations out of the reach of those who might otherwise undertake them, or because of the expectation that it might be better to postpone work against a possible price fall later.

In the course of the past couple of weeks I met personally the group of building trade unions. There have been consultations not merely with that group during the present week, but also with the Builders' Federation, consultations directly related to the question whether it was desirable to maintain in operation the present control over building operations by Government Order. I may say that both parties to the industry are of opinion that the Order should be revoked. Whether the Government will accept that view I cannot say, but the matter will come up for consideration soon. It is likely that the view which the industry has itself expressed will influence the Government's decision also.

Mr. Dillon

Why does the Minister say that prices will not come down when he himself put a tariff on metal bars a month ago?

Mr. Lemass

Put a tariff on what?

Mr. Dillon

Metal bars for housing on the ground that the price was coming down too fast.

Mr. Lemass

That was not quite the situation. That particular Order will come before the Dáil in due course and I will give the Deputy the explanation then. So far as public works are concerned, there has been no reduction in the amount of money made available for the construction of roads and bridges. On the contrary, the total expenditure on this form of public works this year will be £5,300,000 as against £4,800,000 in 1950-51. But a qualification must be expressed there. This is again a point which I would like Deputies to note and particularly the Labour Party. During the period between August, 1950, and August, 1951, there was an average increase of 16 per cent. in the wages paid to road workers and the result, therefore, is that, although the amount of money provided for expenditure on roads and bridges was higher than the previous year, the actual amount of employment given was less. The effect of the increased provision was offset and more than offset in fact by these higher wage rates.

I am not entering into any discussion about wage rates or questioning the necessity for these increases. Everybody knows that these workers are not amongst the highest paid in the country. It is necessary, however, to keep in mind always that any expansion of cost of that kind, however justifiable it may be, is in our circumstances likely to lead to a diminution in our total volume of employment. That is demonstrably true in the case of industry. We have learned that lesson the hard way in the past three or four months in some industries. It is also true in every occupation in which people are employed. We can keep on pushing up costs to a point at which the "pay-off" is unemployment. The cure for inflation is high prices.

Mr. Davin

In some county councils the number of men employed was doubled as a result of the amount given under the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Mr. Lemass

I do not want to get into a controversy on this matter. I want Deputies to understand the facts. Of the total amount made available this year for works on roads and bridges, the amount retained for expenditure in the second half of the year was also substantially higher than in the previous year. It was, in fact, £312,000 higher.

Now, Deputy Larkin said that some county councils may have spent money with more speed than wisdom. The information available to me would suggest that that may have happened in some cases, but in 13 out of 26 counties the amount available for expenditure at this period was higher than in the previous year. In the other 13 counties it was less. But, having regard to the over-all position, whatever circumstances may arise in the counties which have spent their money more rapidly than the others, a significant drop in employment on road works is not to be anticipated.

The expenditure on the Local Authorities (Works) Schemes was somewhat different. The Estimate passed this year provided for a reduction of £500,000. Now, the reason, I understand, why that reduction was accepted was the belief that work on turf production would be more readily available, and that the operations under the Works Act could, without any hardship in the form of increased unemployment, be held over until later in the year when turf production activities had ceased. That policy was, in fact, followed in some counties, while in others the money which was provided under the Works Act was exhausted earlier, or is nearly exhausted now. Because of that situation, in the period existing between this and the resumption of work on turf production and on agricultural work, it may be that in some rural areas there will be unemployment which could not now be affected by any alteration of the arrangements made for the expenditure of the public funds still available. The number of people employed, however, in mid-January on schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act was 6,069, so that it is, I think, wrong to convey the impression that there has been a complete falling off in activities because of the curtailment of the Vote in the present year.

Mr. MacBride

Has the Minister the equivalent figures for last year?

Mr. Lemass

I probably have, but the Deputy, I think, can take it that the total employment this year was a little less. The money provided was £500,000 less. May I point out also that the figures I have given of the money available for expenditure on roads and bridges, or for other schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, do not represent the total funds that are available for rural employment. Account must also be taken of the expenditure on the special employment schemes by the Department of Agriculture, the Land Commission, the Board of Works and Bord na Móna. So far as employment under employment and emergency schemes is concerned, I note that the provision this year under every head is higher than last year—for urban employment schemes, rural employment schemes, minor employment schemes, bog development works, rural improvement schemes and development works on bogs acquired by local authorities. The number of people employed—the latest date I have is the 29th December—on these employment and emergency schemes was 3,800.

I do not want to take up too much of the time available to the Dáil on this motion. There is one proposal in the motion that I want to refer to, the one that relates to the provision of an increase in unemployment insurance benefit and unemployment assistance payments. If that had been the only provision in the motion, I would have urged Deputies not to press for time to discuss it now, because they are aware that proposals for legislation, bearing on social welfare arrangements, will be before the Dáil in the matter of a couple of weeks, and will be the main subject for debate during the present session. I think that Deputies, realising that, will not press the suggestion that there should be any interim arrangements made in regard to that service. No change in the rates payable in respect of unemployment insurance benefit or unemployment assistance could be made except by legislation. That is the occasion on which Deputies can express their views as to the adequacy or otherwise of the Government's proposals.

As regards our attitude to the motion, we had some trouble with it. Any multi-barrelled motion always causes some trouble because one's attitude to any one part of it may be different to other parts. We do not feel that we could take exception to it. We agree that, in industry, there is a situation developing to which the Government must give serious attention. I discussed that situation, and I have told the House that we are giving it serious attention. I am urging that equally serious attention must be given to it by those who are more directly able to influence the position, namely, industrial managements and trade unions. I have indicated that, so far as public works are concerned, we accept the idea that conditions in this country require increased expenditure on public works, though I have emphasised that it will be our aim to try and put the emphasis on the more productive kind of work in the future.

So far as the social welfare arrangements are concerned, we are going to bring proposals to the Dáil in the course of a few days. If there are certain implications in the motion that we may not like, we do not mind if it is adopted by the Dáil. I have stated the Government's position here. I do not think that I have left any room for any misunderstanding about it. I would not like to see the motion rejected by the Dáil because I think it would lead to a misunderstanding amongst unemployed workers as to the attitude of the nation's Parliament to their situation. Therefore, if a choice has to be made between accepting the motion and rejecting it, we would sooner see it accepted and put on the records of the Dáil. That is the attitude of this Party to it.

Mr. MacBride

I would like to welcome the attitude of the Tánaiste in dealing with this motion. I confess that I find it hard to realise that the Tánaiste is a Minister in the same Government as his colleague, the Minister for Finance, or as his other colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, who spoke in this House yesterday evening in regard to the question of credit. However, be that as it may, I may have some suspicions or ideas as to what may have caused this reasonable attitude, but no matter what the cause of it is, I think it is a good thing that we should be in a position to discuss this motion and this question away from a Party atmosphere. So far as I am concerned, I propose to pursue the line taken by the Tánaiste and by the members of the Opposition in discussing the motion so far. I hope that we will be able to maintain that level of debate in the House.

The Tánaiste made one statement which, I think, is absolutely correct in regard to the general position. He stated that it is inevitable that any factor inducing people to buy less is bound to cause unemployment. I think that is a very correct analysis of the present position. I disagree, however, very fundamentally with the Tánaiste when he says that the restriction of credit has not affected the position. Obviously, the restriction of credit is the one important factor inducing people to buy less and, in his own words, is therefore the cause of unemployment. The Tánaiste, I think, is too much of a realist to expect that anyone will seriously believe that the banks have not been restricting credit in the course of the last six months. Everybody in the country is aware of it, and the signs of it are only too evident.

Mr. Lemass

By "restricting credit" does the Deputy mean cutting down or refusing to allow it to expand?

Mr. MacBride

Not giving credit. I would say that in a number of cases they are also calling in overdrafts, or asking people to reduce their overdrafts, but they are certainly not making credit facilities available as freely as they were more than six months ago. Indeed, one has only to read the speeches made by the chairmen of the various boards of directors of the banking companies to get proof of that. They have all, one after the other, practically in a parrot-like fashion, adopted the pronouncement of the governor and directors of the Central Bank, declaring that credit for projects, however desirable they might be, which did not yield immediate benefits, should be postponed to a later date. That has been the invariable declaration of the chairmen of the different banking organisations here, and it is practically identical in terms with the declarations of the Central Bank in its last annual report, and indeed with some of the declarations made by the Minister for Finance in this House and outside.

Obviously, these injunctions by the governors and chairmen of the different banking organisations in the country in regard to the expansion of credit were made with a view to inducing a restriction of credit, and that, in my view, is the fundamental cause of the very steep rise in unemployment which has taken place. As Deputy Norton pointed out, we have had a rise of over 10,000 in the number of unemployed, which only very partially reflects the position, because, as the Taoiseach pointed out in this House a couple of months ago, unemployment figures are always masked by emigration. We have had increased emigration, an increase in the number of permits issued to persons seeking employment abroad, in the course of the past five months of between 60 and 65 per cent. These conditions are due practically entirely to the restriction of credit, but indeed that is the policy which the Central Bank advocated. They wanted restriction of credit. They advocated the cutting down of public works in order to remedy what they referred to as the unusually favourable condition of employment in recent years.

I think the Government has it within its power to remedy this position very quickly by a clear-cut indication that it does not favour this restriction of credit, that, on the contrary, it is Government policy that credit should be extended in present circumstances to enable development works to go ahead, and particularly to enable employers to maintain employment, even if it means extending credit for a prolonged period. If that were done, I think that, in many cases, employers might be induced to maintain employment and to build up and stockpile some of their own goods, provided they felt that they had Government support in doing so. But when employers and the banks receive clear-cut intimations from the Government or from the Central Bank, which is, in effect, the mouthpiece of the Government, that it does not desire to extend credit, that, on the contrary, it is desired to create an unemployment pool—because that is their philosophy and they have practically said so in so many words—it is very difficult to expect employers to seek credits to maintain employment. It is likewise very difficult to expect the banks to extend credit to their customers when they know that it is contrary to the Government's policy or to the policy of the Central Bank.

In that respect, let us be frank—I am sure the Tánaiste will not mind; he has been very frank with the House and I certainly appreciate his attitude in dealing with this motion—about this whole position of credit. We know that there has not been a written order sent by the Government to the banks asking them to restrict credit, but we do know that the Secretary of the Department of Finance is a director of the Central Bank.

We know that he is in touch with the directors of the commercial banks; we know that they have conferences and discussions; we know that the Governor of the Central Bank is in constant touch with the Secretary of the Department of Finance and with the banks; and we know that from day to day advices are passed to the commercial banks in the country. It would be an easy matter for the Government to remedy the credit position, if they desire to do so. They, in effect, control the Central Bank and they have it within their power to control the contraction or expansion of credit.

Before leaving this question, might I say that it looks very much as if, in effect, practically all the recommendations of the Central Bank are being implemented one by one? They advocated a restriction of credit and that has taken place. They advocated the creation of an unemployment pool and that has taken place. They may well congratulate themselves when they next meet in the boardroom in Foster Place in that we have 10,000 more people unemployed and that 65 per cent. more people have emigrated. That was their policy and now they have got the results. They have also advocated the cutting down or the complete abolition of subsidies. I was interested to see several Ministers making speeches about subsidies recently and pointing out that subsidies were introduced only as an emergency measure in an emergency period and were never intended to be permanent. The Tánaiste this evening also dealt with subsidies. Is the Government preparing the ground for doing away with subsidies? Is the Government preparing the ground for doing away with subsidies for the same reasons as those which the Central Bank gave in its report? Bear in mind that the reason the Central Bank advanced for doing away with subsidies was that the people would be able to consume less.

They would have less money to buy goods and they would have to consume less. In other words, they must consume less bread, less butter, less tea and less sugar. They advanced these reasons in so many words in their report. The Tánaiste will realise that, in the light of the declarations which have been made recently by members of the Government in relation to subsidies, taken in conjunction with the advice of the Central Bank, one is inclined to be a little bit suspicious with regard to the Government's intentions regarding subsidies. I know quite well that a case can be made against subsidies, a good case, but there is this consideration. I mention it now because I think the Tánaiste will appreciate it and, I feel, would use his weight in the Government to prevent any step in that direction. Subsidies have this advantage over any other form of help to the community, that they are given in those parts of the economy where they are most needed; in other words, they benefit particularly the woman of the house who has to do the shopping and who has to get the essentials; they benefit particularly large families; they benefit particularly the lower income groups and to that extent they are probably more effective for alleviating low economic conditions than any social service as such.

I do not want to delay the House. I would like to urge on the Tánaiste this view, that one or two principal steps should be taken in the present situation. First of all, credit should be made available to employers in order to sustain employment, at low rates of interest for long periods, if necessary with Government assistance, in order to sustain employment.

Mr. Lemass

If you give the employer a loan to make goods for stockpiling now, are you not only putting the problem off for three months' time? Sooner or later, he will have to sell the stock.

Mr. MacBride

Yes, but this is the vicious circle. You restrict credit, you restrict purchasing power of the people and then industry naturally receives a blow. I think it is a question of getting the wheels moving again and extending employment.

Mr. Lemass

You cannot say there has been a reduction in the bank advances. They may not be extending at the same rate, but they have not been reducing.

Mr. Sweetman

The banks have told their customers that they must be reduced.

Mr. Lemass

The total volume of bank advances is higher than ever.

Mr. Sweetman

But the banks have got instructions that by the 1st May they must be reduced.

Mr. MacBride

I think the Tánaiste is sufficiently realistic to realise that the expansion in the volume of money and the increase in prices that have taken place in effect has reduced the existing amount of credit pro tanto. The greater the amount of national income in terms of money and the more money in circulation, the smaller the terms of credit, unless the terms of credit are correspondingly increased. The turnover is greater. Take a rough example. If it cost a trader £500 12 months ago to buy x quantity of goods, it costs him £750 to buy x quantity of goods to-day, and therefore he requires £250 more credit in order to buy those goods; therefore, a proportionate expansion of credit is required to balance the fall in the value of money.

Mr. Lemass

Would the Deputy work out the figure? It is not much below it.

Mr. MacBride

The Statistics Office will work it out. It is purely relative to the value of money at any given period, particularly in terms of import prices, as it is import prices—I agree with the Tánaiste there—that have been largely responsible for the steep increases in prices. That makes it all the more necessary to expand credit proportionately in order to meet the increased prices.

The second step I would urge is the extension of public works immediately, in order to absorb the rapidly increasing number of unemployed in the building and other trades. One particular sphere in which public works could be extended—and extended fairly rapidly if it were not for a certain amount of administrative difficulty—and which would absorb a considerable proportion of the rural unemployed, particularly in areas west of the Shannon, is the rapid expansion of forestry, which is a sound investment. I am not saying this in any Party sense, but the Tánaiste will probably agree with me as to the vital necessity for increasing afforestation in the country. For some extraordinary reason, the Forestry Branch of the Department of Lands always seems to place obstacles to the rapid expansion of forestry, yet it is one of the public works which has the greatest amount of labour content in proportion to the expenditure on it.

Many other points could be made in the course of this discussion but, having regard to the attitude of the Tánaiste, I do not propose to make any further comment on them.

Mr. Dunne

This has been something of an extraordinary discussion, and I feel I should say how this problem of unemployment affects my particular constituency and that part of the country of which I have some experience. In case there be any doubt in the minds of any Deputies, I would like to say that, regardless of the goodwill that may be generated within this Chamber by this discussion, the Government of the day must take responsibility for whatever unemployment which exists—whatever "day" it may be, whether it be yesterday, to-day or to-morrow.

Captain Cowan

On a point of order, I understand that this motion must be finished at 10.30 to-night. I have offered to speak on three occasions. Three members of the Labour Party have been called. I do not mind whether it is a Labour motion or not; it is a motion before the House. I do think, a Cheann Comhairle, that in fairness to the House, three members of the Labour Party ought not be called one after another and an Independent or private Deputy not allowed to get an opportunity of speaking.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is mistaken. The proposer and seconder were called and there were three other Deputies in between before I called Deputy Dunne. Deputy Cowan is, I understand, an Independent Deputy.

Captain Cowan

That is so.

An Ceann Comhairle

As such, of course, they must take their places in the queue.

Captain Cowan

I would suggest that the proper queue would be, after Fine Gael, Clann na Poblachta and Fianna Fáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would be to say that Independent Deputies would have the same right to speak, one after another, as the Parties. The Chair cannot accept that.

Captain Cowan

I would make the point that, as far as the House is concerned, there are no Parties. It is a matter of Deputies and I ask, a Cheann Comhairle, as a private Deputy, for protection. I think that if I offer myself to speak, where three members of one Party have been called almost one after the other, I am entitled to be seen. However, I have made that point and will leave it at that.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot get away with that charge against the Chair. It has never been accepted by the Chair that an Independent Deputy has a right to be called as members of Parties have, one after the other.

If there were ten independent Deputies, each one of them to be called in turn after members of other Parties, that surely would not be giving fair play to the Parties.

Mr. Davin

On a point of order. Is it not a fact that Deputy Cowan will not repudiate this, as he is an unrepentant supporter of the Government?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order and it is only wasting time.

Captain Cowan

All I want to say is this, and I think it is of importance as far as the rights of Deputies are concerned. No other Independent Deputy offered himself to speak. As far as this motion is concerned, three members of the Labour Party have been called, one after the other.

Deputies

No.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is definitely a charge against the Chair of partiality towards a particular Party. The Chair will not accept that and it is not right. Deputy Cowan has been seen and if Deputy Cowan waited his turn possibly he might be better off.

Captain Cowan

Anyway, I am making the point. I think it is of importance. I have made it and I think I ought to have made it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Independent Deputies will get their turn in relation to their numbers as against Parties in this House.

Captain Cowan

I want to say I respectfully desire to protest against that particular line of thought. We are all seen here as Deputies. We are entitled to be seen by the Chair and there is no question of Independent Deputies or Party Deputies. I am a Deputy entitled to be seen just as much as any other Deputy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will be seen in his turn.

Mr. Davin

It is twice as easy to see Deputy Dunne anyway.

Mr. Dunne

I would like to mention that I have been here since this debate began. This debate has taken a very peculiar and unusual turn in this House where acrimony and political spleen have been part and parcel of this Assembly for many years. In this debate we have got completely outside of politics and that, to my mind, is something of a mistake for it does, to some extent, give to the Government in power an escape from their responsibility in this matter of unemployment. Whatever the composition of the Government may be, whether it be the Government of to-day, yesterday or to-morrow, it must accept responsibility for the economic condition of the country. Otherwise why should it seek power; otherwise why should it administer or pretend to administer the affairs of the State.

We have here at the present time in the Republic of Ireland, a condition of unemployment the likes of which has not existed since before the war. Within a year unemployment figures have jumped by 10,000. I know that to many Deputies, perhaps, in the Government Benches it does not seem to be of very grave significance that that should be so, particularly when they look back and recall that in other years, before the emergency began, unemployment was part and parcel of the economic set up in this country and it was regarded as the most natural thing that should be or could be.

The war years brought about a change because those whom we could not keep here and force to live on starvation wages, whether it was on the farms or on the bogs, we shipped off to England where they got danger money under the German bombs and sent some of it home and managed to keep their relatives going in that way.

Now that all that false prosperity of the war years has gone we find ourselves, after three years of inter-Party Government, during which period, whether you agree with it or not, there was the nearest approach to full employment that ever has been in the country, with 10,000 unemployed more than we had 12 months ago. Make no mistake about it. Unemployment is the most grievous thing that can happen to a family. It brings with it more ills and hardships. It is responsible for the breaking up of more homes than any other force in this country to-day, or in any other country. It has been described variously as an ulcer, as a running sore, and in other terms. Nobody could coin a word sufficient to describe the misery and degradation that unemployment brings in its train, and here we have 74,000 of our people signing at the labour exchanges.

In my own constituency there is the small town of Balbriggan, a town very much the same as many others in other constituencies in Ireland. In Balbriggan 248 people signed this morning at the labour exchange. Behind those 248 people there are innumerable members of families going through want and privation because they cannot get a job. I recall about 12 or 18 months ago, when there might have been a slight fluctuation in unemployment figures, the then Opposition, which is now the Government, seized on every opportunity they could get to pin the responsibility for that situation, if there were a slight increase, upon the Government of the day, and rightly so, because unemployment in those days, such as did exist, was the responsibility of the Government, and it is the responsibility of this Government at the present time.

I would like to know what is going to be done about it. I would like to know what answer I can give to my constituents in County Dublin when they ask me what this Government intends to do to put them back to work. What answer can you give a man who has tramped every building job in and about the City and County of Dublin trying to get sale for his skill, trying to get a job in order to keep his family in some sort of existence; when he has tramped every highway and byway trying to get a job and cannot get one, and he tells you: "My only recourse is to go to Dublin Castle, get a travel permit and go across to England?" Five hundred carpenters are unemployed in the City of Dublin, 500 skilled men, and each of them is faced with that prospect of getting out because no word has been spoken here by the Tánaiste which will give them immediate relief or any prospect of relief in the months to come.

This question of unemployment is not one that should or could be put on the long finger. It is one that must be tackled immediately. The terms of the motion, as I understand it, were to ask the Government what they were going to do now for the unemployed. I had the unfortunate and unhappy experience within the last ten days of having to attend a meeting of a county council in the Midlands, where a deputation of 80 rural workers accompanied me to that council asking that they and the people they represented, some 700 workers in the County of Meath, should be given employment as they had been for the last three years, not upon a princely wage, but upon the barest minimum of a living wage. The answer we got was that the county council could not provide funds out of the rates and that the Minister for Local Government would not receive a deputation from the county council to discuss a grant for the relief of unemployment or additional expenditure under the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

It has been stated here that this is a matter which should not be related to politics. Every representative, or practically every representative of the present Government, who sat on that council and who listened to the case made on behalf of the men in a nonpolitical fashion, endeavoured to twist that case to political advantage. As the cards are placed, so must the game be played. As I said at the outset, I believe it to be the duty of a Government to put men to work, and not the duty of a Government to come into power and simply hold office for the sake of power, Ministries and Parliamentary Secretaryships. That does not mean anything except to the individuals concerned, but how are the ordinary masses of the people living? 70,000 odd of them are living pretty badly to-day under the Fianna Fáil Administration.

This motion has also suggested that the rates of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance should be increased. The Tánaiste, in the course of his remarks, said that there was on the stocks a Social Welfare Bill which would be discussed within the next few months, which would form the basis of discussion for this session of the Dáil and as a result of which a solution would be found to the problem of the present inadequate allowances paid to those drawing unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. We have 74,000 unemployed in this country at the moment and this number will probably double itself if the present policy of the Government is continued within the next six or eight months.

Have these people got to sit down and wait until Dáil Éireann, in its leisurely fashion, discusses a complicated measure of social security before they can get a few more shillings to help them to live? A single unemployed man in rural areas draws 9/- a week unemployment assistance. Fancy a contribution of 9/- a week from this magnanimous State. The highest amount of unemployment assistance drawn on the average by a married man with a family is 23/- a week. Does anybody consider for a moment that these sums represent anything more than an insult to the intelligence, not only of the people who are badly hit and suffering economic distress, but an insult to the intelligence of the entire nation and a crime committed in the name of the nation?

I would have preferred to hear the Tánaiste say: "We are going to do something now. We are going to increase unemployment benefit now and we are going to increase the rates of unemployment assistance." However, nothing like that was said. There was vague talk of public works and a vague comment on rising prices, but what hope goes out from this discussion to the people who are suffering? What hope will the unemployed worker in Balbriggan, Swords, Lucan and Clondalkin and in the City of Dublin get to-morrow when he reads the report of this discussion in the daily papers? Will they be any better off? I do not believe they will because, although the Tánaiste expressed his willingness to accept the motion, nothing concrete has been stated as to what is going to be done. Immediate steps should be taken in the counties where unemployment is worst. It is not only wrong, but it is false and misleading to suggest that unemployment is not abundant throughout rural districts. In a small village in County Limerick, where I happened to be last Sunday, of the 80 men congregated in a hall, 50 were going to England because they could not get a job here. They had been employed up to recent months by the county council. Situations such as this are developing throughout the country and the Deputies who represent Dublin constituents can recount the position within the city boundary where there is a depression in industry together with the restriction of credit which has been touched on by various speakers.

Immediate steps should be taken to initiate public works in every county where there is inordinate unemployment. In the county which Deputy Cogan represents, and particularly close to the area where Deputy Cogan lives, unemployment abounds. Rural workers who were formerly engaged on county council works are now out of work in their hundreds. The same situation exists in County Carlow. As I have already stated, this is a situation which ought not to be left hanging for six or eight months while Dáil Éireann pursues its leisurely course. Immediate steps should be taken to place funds at the disposal of local authorities with a view to relieving the unemployment situation. The Tánaiste in his statement gave no indication that such steps were about to be taken. Simultaneously with the development of unemployment in the small towns which I have recounted, the price of milk has been increasing. I wonder how much milk a man with six children living in a small town in rural Ireland could afford to buy on his 23/- unemployment assistance?

Mr. Davin

At 5½d. per pint.

Mr. Dunne

Yes, at 5½d. a pint. I wonder how much food such a man could buy, how well he could dress himself, and could he pay the fancy rents which many local authorities are now asking of working-class people throughout the country in an endeavour to maintain as low a rate as they can in the different counties? That had better be left to the imagination than described, but it certainly does reflect the total and absolute bankruptcy that the policy of the present Administration has brought about, that this trend has not only been allowed to develop but allowed to continue developing. It cuts me to think that there is an idea amongst the Fianna Fáil Party which conceives it to be a normal condition of affairs that there should be thousands of unemployed people. I believe that some individuals amongst politicians take the view that there cannot be a healthy economy unless there are large numbers of unemployed. Such a view and such an attitude is criminal and something which must be eradicated from the minds of any representatives of politicians in this country who may hold it. We are no longer living in the years when large masses of the people can be unemployed without a clamour from them and without a voice being raised on their behalf or anything done for them. We are living now in an era when the working-class people, whether they be rural or urban dwellers, take a far deeper and more intelligent interest even in politics, and apply far more intelligent tests and standards even to politics than they did in other distant years.

Those who are responsible for having them in the condition they are in, those who are responsible for having the unemployed workers of the Republic living in near destitution, thrown out of their jobs and nothing being done about them, I hope they will give those workers an early opportunity of expressing their views at the polls as to the competency or otherwise of their administration. The issue referred to in this motion is of vital importance to the whole nation. I must at least emphasise my disappointment at the statement of the Tánaiste, my disappointment that nothing will be done to relieve these miserable thousands of people. There is no hope for them but wait and see. All they can do is to get their passports and go to England. That, I suppose, is only to be expected from Fianna Fáil but one would have thought they had learned something from their period in the wilderness. It appears that they did not. I think the wilderness yawns again for them.

Captain Cowan

This debate, until Deputy Dunne intervened, proceeded on what I consider a very high and constructive note.

Mr. Dunne

Because it suited the Deputy.

Captain Cowan

I think that when Deputy Dunne spoke of 9/- a week for the unemployed single man in the country and 23/- a week for the unemployed married man with six children, he had overlooked one important fact—that almost four years ago he and I and others of us selected his Leader, Deputy Norton, and placed him in charge of the Department of Social Welfare so that he could take steps to put an end to this 9/- a week and this 23/- a week.

Mr. Davin

And he did.

Captain Cowan

If he did, how is it that Deputy Dunne is complaining about them now?

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

He kept down the cost of living.

Mr. Davin

What did you vote for on the 3rd March last?

Mr. Hickey

I would rather that Deputies would think about the unemployed rather than about Parties.

Captain Cowan

Quite right. Those are the things that one feels it very difficult to understand when debates take place in this House. We ought to face the realities of every situation and it is regrettable and degrading that unemployed people with families should be expected to live on 23/- per week. There is no doubt about it. We had the power over three and a half years to put an end to that. Unfortunately, we did not.

Mr. Davin

What did you vote for on the 3rd March?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Davin can tell us all that later on.

Mr. Davin

He knows it, of course, but he has lost his memory.

Captain Giles

He is mesmerised.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Davin takes the line—he has been taking that line for some little time—that he is the leader of the Fine Gael section of this inter-Party Opposition.

Mr. Davin

Not at all.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Norton proposed this motion to-night and Deputy Larkin followed. Both realised that there was a serious situation to be faced. Deputy Lemass, the Tánaiste, who followed, agreed that there was a serious situation. He agreed that the motion up to then had been debated in a sound, constructive way and announced his ideas as to how that serious situation should be faced. If we had proceeded on those lines, we might have been more successful in our approach to these serious problems.

I realise that unemployment is growing. Any person who gets the official statistics and studies them must notice a gradual increase in unemployment over a period of months. Now the unemployment figure is over 70,000. That is a serious situation that must be faced by this Parliament, this Government and by every responsible representative of the people. What is the cause of that increase in unemployment? Part is due, as has been frankly admitted here to-night, to factors difficult to control, but there are factors, I believe, within our control that should help to lessen the unemployment figures.

Deputy General Mulcahy and Deputy Dunne referred here to-night to the mounting emigration figures. I have not been able to get the correct data but I think it is within the knowledge of Deputies that many people are returning from England now because of unemployment there, particularly in the Midlands. Any person who has to have his children working in England realises that there is an unemployment problem in the Midlands of England due to a shortage of steel and other matters. There are many people returning to this country who are now on the unemployment exchanges. I do not say it is a considerable number. I do not, for one moment, say that it is a considerable number, but there are registering in our exchanges to-day men who have returned from Britain.

Mr. Davin

For week-ends.

Captain Cowan

Many have returned from Britain as far back as Christmas. I do not say for one moment that it is a substantial number.

Mr. Davin

Look at the shipping figures.

Captain Cowan

But I do say that there is not the case in obtaining employment in England now that there was some time ago. There is some difficulty. I know individual cases of men who are walking about in towns in England and cannot obtain employment.

Mr. Davin

30,000 men are required in the railways, and if you have any pals over there send them down to them.

Captain Cowan

I am only talking about facts within my own knowledge.

Mr. Davin

I know that too.

Captain Cowan

As I say, there are factors difficult to control but in regard to that other matter I mentioned I do not want any Deputy to consider that I think it is substantial. At the moment, however, in the Midlands of England there is considerable difficulty in getting employment; it is not as easy to get as it was some time ago.

Mr. Keyes

That is false.

Captain Cowan

I am stating it as a fact within my own personal knowledge.

Mr. Keyes

I am speaking from my own knowledge too.

Captain Cowan

My statement is not based on any statistics whatsoever, but on my own personal knowledge.

There are factors within our own control which are leading to unemployment and I want specifically to mention—and it was for no other purpose. that I rose to speak this evening—the curtailment of bank credit.

Mr. Hickey

And you are on sound lines too.

Captain Cowan

When Deputy Mulcahy was speaking and said that instructions had been given to the banks I asked who had given those instructions. I had no intention of interrupting Deputy Mulcahy but I wanted him to state his view so that the Tánaiste would give his opinion on the matter. This curtailment of bank credit is not of recent origin. In the inter-Party Government time on numerous occasions when we had complaints about the curtailment of bank credit I had to ask Deputy McGilligan, then Minister for Finance, whether the Government—whether we—had given any instructions to the banks and he emphatically denied it.

Mr. Hickey

They are the bosses of this country.

Captain Cowan

I know, but I want to get the thing straightened out.

Mr. Davin

That is very difficult.

Captain Cowan

That complaint was made during the inter-Party Government time and everybody knows it. It was denied by the Government and by Deputy McGilligan, but I know that at that time there was a restriction of credit, and I know that there has been a bigger restriction of credit recently. I am satisfied that those instructions have not been given by the Government.

Mr. Davin

They were given by Deputy MacEntee on the 18th July in this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cowan should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Captain Cowan

One cannot speak in this House without this inter-Party leader, Deputy Davin, interrupting. There has been a serious restriction of bank credit, not due to any instructions given by the Government, but to instructions given to the banks by the people who control them, and they are not the Government or the people of this country. Clearly, the instructions have been given to the banks by the Bank of England and the people whom the Bank of England represents.

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear!

Captain Cowan

I want to make that perfectly clear. The position is that the banks we have in this country are not national banks under the control or even under the influence of the Government of this country. They are independent saboteurs working in the interests of a foreign State, and I think that every person who studies this matter will find that that is so. It is all very well to talk about unemployment; it is all very well to talk about emigration, but if the banks of this country cannot be influenced by the Government of this country then nothing very much can be done about either unemployment or emigration.

Mr. MacBride

Does the Deputy extend his remarks to the Central Bank as well?

Captain Cowan

I intended to.

Mr. MacBride

They apply also to the Central Bank?

Captain Cowan

I intended that, although I do not think it is the same issue.

Mr. MacBride

They do influence the commercial banks through the Central Bank.

Captain Cowan

We talk about our freedom and our liberty; but where is the freedom, where is the liberty, when the lifeblood of the business of the nation cannot be influenced—I do not want to put it "controlled"—by the Government or even by public opinion in this country?

Mr. Hickey

Because the banks are not responsible to them.

Captain Cowan

I think we had a golden opportunity at the time of the bank strike, when the banks shut down, when they would not have any discussions with their staffs and upset the whole business of the community—not to nationalise all the banks, because I have not reached that decision yet—but to establish one State bank, for if one State bank had been started at that time we would not be in the difficulty we are in to-day with regard to the restriction of bank credit.

The Tánaiste referred to statistics, but if he were in the position we are in every day, when we have to act for clients and go to the banks to get credit for them or an advance, he would find that when you go to the bank manager he says very bluntly: "You know the position, you know our orders; we cannot give credit." That is the story which is told day after day in the offices of bank managers. Anyone who in face of that says that there is no restriction of bank credit is just not in touch with the realities facing business persons. Take a person with a small business who had an overdraft of £5,000 or £10,000; the bank comes along and says that they are reducing by so much his overdraft. What effect has that? It means that one, two or three employees of that firm are laid off and two or three more are unemployed. That has been happening all over the country. Totalling all those things, you will find a very considerable number of people unemployed who had worked in very small private businesses. That is due to the operation of the banks with regard to credit of that particular kind and that is entirely different from the restriction of credit in so far as new industries, the extension of industries or, in fact, the maintenance of industries are concerned.

On this debate I do not want to go into the question which has been referred to as the repatriation of foreign assets because I do not think the question vital to this debate or this subject, but I do agree that it is necessary to give our own Central Bank power—it has no power at the moment—to control credit in the national interest. I have often stated that before in this House and I do not want to elaborate on it this evening, but my view is that while the Central Bank operates under the restricted powers given to it by statute it cannot help in the creation of facilities for employment or for national reconstruction.

Deputy Mulcahy mentioned the building industry and referred to one aspect of it, the Dublin Corporation finances, and I stated very definitely as a member of Dublin Corporation that finance was no obstacle to them. That is the position as I understand it. We have run into serious trouble in connection with our building programme in Dublin. Our building programme is down 400 houses this year so far. That is alarming and it is the subject of a very special meeting that has been arranged to be held in the next couple of weeks.

One of the reasons given for that reduction, which I should like examined and which we have not been able to examine fully as yet is that that was due to a cement strike last year. That is one of the reasons that has been given to us by the officials for this reduction of 400 houses in our building programme in Dublin. It is not finance. I want to make that clear. All the finance that we have needed to carry on up to the present in Dublin has been made available and we have no reason to believe that the additional £5,000,000 that we are now seeking will not be forthcoming.

Mr. MacBride

I wonder would the Deputy make certain that there are not on the files of the corporation— not necessarily files within the Deputy's control or that he knows about—letters recently in regard to the restriction of credit for housing. The Deputy might inquire into that when he is dealing with the corporation.

Captain Cowan

We are dealing with this whole housing situation in Dublin at a special meeting, but our position is that, while there has been a reduction in building, it is not due to finance. That is, up to the present, it is not due to finance. In the arrangements we are making for an additional £5,000,000 to continue the building programme we have not been advised that there is any difficulty in the matter of the provision of that £5,000,000. I think everyone will agree that it is a desirable position. It was only to clear up that point that I said to Deputy General Mulcahy this evening, when he was speaking, that we had no reason to believe that the money we require for our building programme would not be forthcoming.

There are some persons unemployed due to the hotel strike in Dublin. I do not mean people who are directly locked out, but indirectly because the hotels are not operating there is some unemployment. That, again, is a matter that is within our own control. We can help to put an end to the present lock-out in certain hotels in Dublin.

I agree with what was said here to-night about stockpiling. Stock was brought in. People were encouraged to buy stock. It was considered the right thing to do. At that time everyone was talking about a world war. I did express the view in the House at the time that there was no danger of a war. I was laughed at.

Mr. O'Higgins

Who laughed at you?

Mr. Davin

The Deputy was the only prophet then.

Captain Giles

Joe did not send you word, I suppose? He did not laugh at you.

Captain Cowan

It is well to be informed.

Mr. Davin

In imagination.

Captain Cowan

However, it was my view at the time that there was no danger but these stocks were brought in and, obviously, the people who brought them in hoped they would make substantial profits on them. That was their idea. They believed there would be a war. If a war did come and they had all these valuable stock of consumer goods they would certainly do well. The war did not come. They were burdened with these stocks. They have endeavoured to get rid of them. They have to lose money in the process.

Mr. Rooney

Normal turnover is down.

Captain Cowan

I know. That cannot be helped. If people have only a certain amount of money to spend they cannot spend any more than that, and if goods that are bought in in the way these were bought in cost more than the ordinary goods, obviously, all those goods cannot be cleared by the same amount of money.

Mr. Hickey

You agree there is no inflation while there are goods at the disposal of the people?

Captain Cowan

I do, in a broad, general way. I do not want to get into a discussion on inflation. I do believe that, while houses are being built, while constructive works are being done, while afforestation, that was mentioned to-night, is being developed, while all that work is going on, whatever amount of money is paid to the people who do that work, it will not lead to inflation. I think that is accepted.

We have a particular problem in this country, the problem of agriculture, and, unless we can employ more people on the land, we cannot wipe out the roll of unemployed that has existed for a long period. There is a pool of unemployed of 40,000 or so. I think it will be agreed that in that 40,000 there is probably a very big number who are unemployable, who ought to be removed from the unemployed register so that there would be a true reflection of the number of people who are actually able to work and who are unemployed. We know that at every employment exchange there are men registering for employment who are not able to work. They are physically unable to work even if they get employment.

The development of industry can ease the unemployment problem but, in my view, there must be more employment on the land. There is no way in which you can have more employment on the land now except by compulsory tillage. When I say compulsory tillage, I want to be understood fairly. I do not mean that you are just going to have compulsory tillage all over the country in the way we had it a few years ago. There are certain areas, say, the dairying areas, which should be exempt from compulsory tillage. There are certain places where there are small farms that should be exempt because, in any case, they do their proportion of tillage. There are tracts of a county, and counties—Deputy Giles knows it; the County Meath—where you will not have agriculture unless it is compulsory.

Captain Giles

So you want to exclude Cavan. I know you well.

Captain Cowan

I do because in Cavan they till more than their share.

Captain Giles

You skipped out of it anyhow.

Captain Cowan

However, Cavan does its share of tillage and does it well and some of the hardest working people in Ireland live in County Cavan.

Captain Giles

Yes; they stayed in it.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Giles knows that. But, what I do think is that we must have an intelligent policy of compulsory tillage so that more people will be employed. In Dunboyne, which again is in Deputy Giles' constituency, there are many people unemployed at the moment. They have said to me that there is only one hope for them and that is compulsory tillage.

Captain Giles

On the Land Commission lands.

Captain Cowan

On any land. I want compulsory tillage of land not of roads.

Mr. Keyes

On a point of order. There is a time limit to this debate. Is this professional time-killer to use any argument he likes to waste the time allowed for the motion?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair understands that Deputy Norton is to be allowed fifteen minutes to conclude.

Mr. Keyes

The time is being wasted.

Captain Cowan

I had no intention to waste time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the interruptions ceased, we would get along much more quickly.

Captain Cowan

And I would have finished long ago.

Mr. Davin

He is provoking them deliberately.

Captain Cowan

I am not provoking them. I am just stating what appears important to me. When a motion of this kind is before the House, it is our duty to say what is important in trying to solve a particular problem with which it deals. I have only to say in conclusion that the debate, although it has been short, has probably shown the House in its most constructive form and if all Parties in the House—the Government, the Opposition and the Independent Parties who are not part of the Opposition——

Mr. Davin

Where are the Independents?

Captain Cowan

I said the Independent Parties. The Labour Party is not part of the Opposition. It does not recognise the Opposition; it is at Independent Party. I hope Deputy Davin will not contest that. If all of us would do everything we could to solve the problem then I think we would be successful. I am glad to say that all the speakers to-night did realise there is a serious problem and that that problem although it is difficult to solve, can be tackled with determination, if we are all agreed on the measures to be adopted to ease it. I sincerely hope that the Government, assisted by everybody in the House, will take the practical steps that are necessary to reduce this growing volume of unemployment. If we can stop the growth of unemployment at the moment, then I think we can take effective steps to reduce the number of unemployed and that will in turn affect the other issue that has been mentioned, emigration.

Mr. D. Costello rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy understands that Deputy Norton will require 20 minutes to conclude.

Mr. D. Costello

I do not intend to delay the House. In view of the Government's attitude to the motion it is not necessary to take up much of the time of the House. I do wish to place on record, however, my belief that it is the duty of any modern democratic Government, having conserved the essential liberties of the people to see that full employment is secured for its citizens. I believe it is the duty of a Government in every democratic country to endeavour to achieve that desirable end. I think the present Government, inasmuch as unemployment has increased during its régime, has failed in one of its primary duties towards its citizens. Modern economic thought has brought to light a number of methods by which unemployment can be tackled effectively.

I think one basis on which this problem can be tackled is by increasing the effective demand for labour, so that the resources of the State are fully developed as a result of the increased spending power placed in the hands of the public. That can be achieved, when private individuals fail to create that effective demand, by Government budgetary policy. It can be done indirectly by means of tax concessions in the taxation framework and it can be done directly by means of public works schemes.

I should like to see, and I think it is necessary to see, increased Government expenditure on capital account. One of the most serious and genuine grounds of criticism of the present Government policy is that the capital investment programme is being curtailed. I hope it will not; I hope it will be increased. In the field of public works the Government has a very effective method of helping to reduce the unemployment problem. The benefits which accrued from the capital investment programme were evident in the figures for unemployment. The fact that unemployment had so startlingly decreased in the few years prior to the present Government coming into office was not due to mere fortuitous circumstances. I think it was clearly due to the financial and economic policies operated by the last Government. In 1938 the proportion of workers unemployed in industries, excluding agriculture, was 15 per cent. and in 1950 it had been reduced to 7.5 per cent. Between 1949 and 1950 employment went up by 7 per cent. That, as I say, was the result of the Government of the day shouldering its responsibilities to the unemployed of the country.

It has frequently been pointed out, and it is now a truism, that we export part of our unemployment difficulties in the form of emigrants. If there was not this large volume of emigration, which recent figures reveal is increasing, our unemployment problem would be still more formidable than it is at present. Until we can see emigration being reduced to manageable proportions and unemployment figures brought down to a much lower level than at present, we cannot say that the Government of the day has succeeded in fulfilling one of its primary functions.

I do not think it is sufficient for the Government merely to accept the motion. It is not sufficient for them piously to wish for increased employment. They must take the steps necessary to bring about that increased employment. The Minister for Finance is, presumably, in the throes of framing his Budget. At any rate, he has an idea of the manner in which that Budget will be framed, and I think it must be placed on record that the increased taxation which is threatened, or which is implicit, at any rate, in Government speeches, will have a deflationary effect and will tend to perpetuate the conditions under which we are suffering at the present time, namely, deflationary conditions. If the Government are sincere in their acceptance of this motion, they will take the steps which have been advocated here time and again, namely, to produce a tax framework in which the maximum possible incentive is given to private investment on the capital side of the Budget to increase capital expenditure, and at the same time to produce the resources necessary for this increased capital expenditure by a largely increased savings drive. I believe it is the view of the Government that the resources to be made available for capital investment in this country ought to come out of increased taxation. I believe that is a deflationary method of financing a capital investment programme which should be availed of only in very restricted and difficult conditions. These conditions do not exist at the present time. If the Government are sincere in their acceptance of this motion and in their desire to reduce the amount of unemployment that exists at present they will not adopt the policies which have now come to be associated with the names of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. The Government must be regarded as having failed because the unemployment figures have reached the proportion which they have reached to-day. It is not enough for the Government to wish for a happier set of circumstances. They must, by deliberate policy, bring about a happier set of circumstances. They cannot shuffle off that responsibility by blaming the present unsatisfactory conditions on external forces.

Mr. Norton

There is not a lot to reply to in this debate because the Minister for Industry and Commerce has indicated that the Government are prepared to accept the motion. But let it be perfectly clear what the motion asks, so that the Minister will know what he is accepting. Portion of this motion asks "that the Government should increase the existing rates of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance benefit pending the passing of legislation to provide for improved social security". If the Minister is accepting this motion, as he said he was, let it be quite clear that he is committing himself to the acceptance of an obligation on the part of the Government to increase these rates of benefit. It is no answer to this motion to say that the Government intends to introduce shortly a comprehensive Social Security Bill. The Government has had a ready-made Bill at its disposal for the past eight months. The Minister for Social Welfare said in this House in August last that he hoped that that Bill would be introduced and passed through the Dáil by Christmas. It is now February in the new year and we have not yet seen the Bill—even though the Minister had a ready-made Bill at his disposal which passed its Second Reading in this House in March of last year. Therefore it is no answer to the motion to say that this Bill which the Minister may at some future date produce will provide for increased rates of benefit. This motion asks that the increased rates of benefit should be provided in advance of the Bill. It does that for the simple reason that anybody who has any experience of the Bill and of the administrative machine that will be necessary to implement it, plus any knowledge of the time which it will take to pass that Bill through this House and the Seanad at a time of the year when financial business is pressing, must realise that it will probably be the end of the year before there is any increase in unemployment insurance or unemployment assistance rates.

Deputy Cowan has spoken of what was not done for the unemployed in the past. If Emerson was correct when he said that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, then Deputy Cowan must have the most mountainous mind in the country because consistency is not one of his characteristics. All the observations which he made this evening completely contradict the observations which he made in this House in March of last year.

Minister for Education (Mr. Moylan)

A false consistency.

Mr. Norton

I accept the Minister's interpretation of Deputy Cowan. In March last Deputy Cowan was challenging the then Government to go to the country on the comprehensive social security scheme. With his elastic political conscience he now considers himself a kind of official white-washer for the Fianna Fáil Government. I do not covet him that position at all. Deputy Cowan has shown talents for it. He has shown them in the past few months. However, he will not run consistently. Any time the boat rocks, that gentleman will be looking for a life-belt. I commend him, therefore, to the Fianna Fáil Party on the condition that they understand that characteristic of his. The Deputy has quite a considerable acquaintance with political Parties and he holds a record for not staying very long in any of them.

Under the comprehensive Social Security Bill that was introduced and that passed its Second Reading in this House in March of last year, it was proposed that the rate of unemployment insurance benefit would be raised from 35/- per week, in the case of a man with a wife and two children, to 50/- per week. If that Bill had gone through, a family unit consisting of a man, his wife and two children would now be entitled to receive 50/- per week unemployment insurance. While I was Minister I remember that at either the last or the second last conference with the officials of the Department of Social Welfare I told them that I wanted the administrative machine ready to pay these new rates of benefit as from the 1st January of 1952. When they pleaded that I was rushing them and pressing them and that they did not think they could do it, they offered, by way of the best they could do, that the scheme would be put into operation at the end of March or at the beginning of April of this year. I never accepted that as an excuse.

I pressed them to do it, and to do it by the 1st January, and I never relented from that decision. But whether it be the 1st January or the 1st April, if it had been possible of implementation by the 1st January, a family unit consisting of a man, his wife and two children would be getting 50/- per week instead of the present rate of 35/- per week under the present Government, which Deputy Cowan supports. Even if they did not come into operation on the 1st January, these benefits would have come into operation no later than the end of March or the beginning of April. That would be a period of six weeks from now. I challenge Deputy Cowan's political masters to deny, by reference to the official documents in the Department of Social Welfare, that I pressed to have the comprehensive scheme brought into operation to pay every one of the new rates of benefit not later than the 1st January—with the proviso that the £1 per week old age pension and the £1 per week blind pension should be paid in September of last year, which was done.

If Deputy Cowan had maintained, even for a further short period, the consistency for which he is not greatly renowned, we could at least have a situation in which the unemployed would to-day be getting a substantially higher rate of benefit than they are, in fact, getting. There is no indication when they are going to get these increased rates. It is a reasonable forecast that it will probably be nine months before there is any increase in benefit paid to the unemployed under the comprehensive Bill. I challenge anybody to deny the accuracy of that forecast, having regard to the background knowledge of the administrative machine that must be geared up.

It is not dealing with the motion to offer a benefit nine months hence. That is no answer to a motion which demands that these benefits should be paid to-day, and paid speedily. All the Minister has got to do is to introduce a two-clause Bill increasing unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance benefits by a percentage increase, as was done previously when the rates were raised over the 1939 level.

This House will pass all stages of a Bill of that kind in one day, and it can be financed out of money already in the Unemployment Insurance Fund. In the course of my opening speech I raised the question as to the missing £1,250,000, and I thought we would have had some answer from the Minister who was responsible then for that transaction. I made it clear that the Government then agreed to pay a contribution for every person who joined the Army during the emergency from 1939. The Government have welshed on that money and they now owe £1,250,000 to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That is not the Government's money. It is the workers' money because it is the workers' fund. If the Government will pay what they owe there will be more than sufficient money in the fund to meet any reasonable claim made under this motion. But the Government have been silent as to what they propose to do about the £1,250,000. They went out of office the last time without paying that sum. We heard a lot of talk that the last Government did not provide for some interest charges to banks in respect of money used for the financing of a turf scheme. I will put that down on one side and on the other side the fact that the Fianna Fáil Government went out of office owing a bill amounting to £1,250,000 and never made any provision for that. We can then get some picture of the purity and the nobility of the motives of the folk who pretended to be so horrified that provision was not made for interest charges to banks in respect to a State financed turf scheme.

As I said, this motion is rendered urgent by reason of the fact that unemployment is growing and growing rapidly, that the rates of benefit are so low that they do not provide the barest sustenance for those who are unemployed, that the price levels to-day make it utterly impossible for those who are unfortunately unemployed to keep body and soul together on the miserable rates and benefits they are receiving under existing legislation and that there is no early prospect, apparently, that that legislation will be substantially improved. I think that our unemployment position will grow worse and worse and that makes the need for this motion all the more urgent and the need for the relief of those unemployed all the greater. One can hardly expect that the unemployment position will get better in view of the gloomy speeches which are being made by members of the Government. Deputy Larkin appealed for some little optimism, for some buoyancy in ministerial statements; but even that did not draw any real reciprocation from the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The most touching thing I saw for a long time was a photograph in a daily newspaper recently of half a dozen immaculately dressed manufacturers grouped around the Minister for Finance at a well-stocked table in the largest hotel in the City of Dublin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has this any relation to the motion?

Mr. Norton

Very definitely it has, as I will show. With smiles on their faces at that sumptuous meal, all the boys, led by the Minister for Finance, bemoaned that the country was heading straight for bankruptcy and the Minister for Finance had the audacity to say that a point had been reached when we were on the verge of desperation. They were all immaculately dressed at a magnificently appointed table in the Gresham Hotel. How can the country get leadership and guidance from a Minister who can avail of a rendezvous such as that and from that eminence, under those circumstances, tell us that the country is heading straight for bankruptcy and that he is afraid the point of desperation has been reached? As long as we get dreary speeches of that kind we will get more and more unemployment.

The best thing for Ministers in that nervy and neurotic economic condition is to resign and let somebody who is cheerful, who has some faith in the country, somebody who does not believe we are heading for bankruptcy, occupy the Government Benches. I am sure the whole Government Party are not in a state of corrosive depression. I am sure there are some cheery souls who can, at a time like this, be expected to take a hand at the helm. Ministers who are making these speeches are a national menace; they are public pests, and the best service they can render to the community is to get out and let others who have some regard for the danger which depressive speeches of that kind have on public confidence take their place. This motion is being offered and is being pressed in the House on the understanding that it makes a demand for an immediate increase in unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance benefit prior to the enactment of a comprehensive scheme of social legislation. If the Government accept the motion on that basis, well and good. They will be pressed from this day onwards to introduce legislation to give effect to the motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Am I to take it that the motion is agreed to?

Mr. Rooney

The motion was accepted by the Minister, but we did not get any undertaking that it would be implemented.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Motion agreed?

Mr. O'Donnell

Are we to take it when the motion is accepted that there will be increased rates of unemployment benefit?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We must not have any more speeches.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am merely asking a question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understand that the Tánaiste accepted the motion.

Mr. O'Donnell

I wish to have it confirmed that this motion has been accepted.

Mr. Davin

Ask the Minister for Education who is now on the front bench.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Government accept a motion of no confidence in the Government.

Question put and agreed to.